■  w// 

m 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


BOOK  CLASS  VOLUME 


Mwm 


sp 


m 


ajlLr 

w:: 


si m 


m 


m 


Wip 

*  M* 

-*JilL'J; ,  oOcOy/  i ; 

// 

c^- • •  ,  |  f  7  ^%fci 

iBi 

wmmm 

#  - 

'"Oic7-  1 ' 

fpp 

®Ryil 

#  «■  Ml 

M'  A\i'Z/  /^Tv  -  O.  T> 

v/ /IV Will//  '//  \  Sw  ////,  l\ 

af 

:^j^j' ;  ,7- 

.  O^ipOi 1  / 

—  1  i  ‘  ■  '  *b\  0F  ^\N  O 

'SmC'jii  Ov  i  VO  Jr, 

'TFTv''''  ■  7/0^’^'''  ]/, 

jJjt 

O  /y/^'  jfn'K  '•O'  If/'  ,vn\s 

^1 

# 


m 


*S~ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/historyofgermanl02sche_0 


A  HISTORY 


OF 

;erman  literature 


W.  SCHERER 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  THIRD  GERMAN  EDITION 


BY 

MRS.  F.  C.  CONYBEARE 


♦  EDITED  BY 

F.  MAX  MULLER 


$ 


\ 


VOLUME  II. 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 

1890 


[  AU  rights  reserved  ] 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  II. 


CHAPTER  XI, 


he  Age'of  Frederick  the  Great . 

Frederick  and  the  national  life,  i.  The  Seven  Years’  War,  i. 
The  Saxon  Poets,  i. 


Leipzig 


2 


Relations  of  Frederick  with  Gottsched  and  Gellert,  2.  Gottsched,  3. 
Gellert,  8.  The  ‘  Bremer  Beitrage,’  12.  Rabener,  13.  Zacharia,  14. 

Elias  Schlegel,  15.  Younger  dramatists,  Cronegk  and  Bra  we,  16. 
Christian  Felix  Weisse,  and  the  Operetta,  16.  Revival  of  German 
popular  song,  18. 

Zurich  and  Berlin . 19 

Bodmer  and  Breitinger,  22.  Frederick  the  Great,  24.  Poets  in 
Halle,  28.  Poets  in  Berlin,  29.  Klopstock,  30.  Ewald  von  Kleist, 

38.  Salomon  Gessner,  39.  Wieland,  40. 

Lessing . 47 

First  period  (to  1755),  47.  Connection  with  Voltaire,  49.  ‘Miss 
Sara  Samson,’  52.  —  Second  peiiod  (to  1772),  53.  Seven  Years’ 

War,  54.  Gleim’s  War  Songs,  54.  Foreign  popular  poetry  and 
ballads,  55.  ‘The  Litteraturbriefe,’  58.  ‘Minna  von  Barnhelm,’  69. 
German  Novels,  61.  Revival  of  Classical  influence,  62.  Winckel- 
mann  67.  Lessing’s  Laokoon,  65.  ‘The  Hamburgische  Dramaturgic,’ 

67.  The  Antiquarian  letters,  69.  ‘Emilia  Galotti,’  71. — Third  period 
(to  1781),  72.  Theological  controversy,  75.  *  Nathan  der  Weise,’  77. 

Herder  and  Goethe  . 82 

Essays  on  ‘German  style  and  art,*  and  the  literary  revolution,  82. 
Justus  Moser,  83.  J.  G.  Hamann,  85.  Herder,  86.  Goethe’s  youth 
(to  1775),  91.  Herder’s  influence  on  Goethe,  94.  ‘Gotz,’  96. 

Other  poems,  99.  Religious  and  moral  development,  102.  Werther,  * 
107.  German  letter- writing,  no. 


VI 


Contents 


PAGE 

The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati  .  .  .  .114 

Dramatists  of  the  Storm  and  Stress  Period,  Lenz,  Klinger,  Wagner, 

Maler  Muller,  Torring,  1 1 5  :  Schiller,  116.  Gottingen  brotherhood, 

1 19  :  Boie,  Miller,  Holty.  The  Stolbergs,  120.  Voss,  121.  Burger, 

122.  Revival  of  early  German  poetry,  123.  Herder’s  Storm  and 
Stress  period,  124.  Lavater,  Jung  Stilling,  Claudius,  126.  Fritz 
Jacobi,  127.  Heinse,  128.  Wieland  at  Weimar,  129.  ‘  Oberon,’  131. 
Lessing,  Lichtenberg  and  Nicolai,  132.  Frederick  the  Great’s  ‘  De  la 
litterature  Allemande,’  132.  Berlin,  133.  Moses  Mendelssohn,  135. 

Kant,  136.  Herder’s  ‘  Ideen,’  139. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Weimar . . 142 

Goethe  at  the  Wartburg,  142.  Anna  Amalia  and  Karl  August,  143. 
Goethe’s  Masque  for  Dec.  18,  1818,  144. 

Goethe . 145 


Official  work,  and  court  life  in  Weimar,  145.  Frau  von  Stein,  146. 
Scientific  studies,  148.  Edition  of  his  early  works,  150.  ‘Egmont,’ 

151.  ‘  Iphigenie,’  152.  ‘Tasso,’  156.  Poems  written  at  Weimar, 

15S.  Travels,  161.  Goethe’s  Italian  journey,  162.  Studies  in 
physics,  163.  Views  on  Art,  164.  Christiane  Vulpius,  166.  Roman 
Elegies,  167. 

Schiller  and  Goethe . 170 

The  ‘  Horen,’  172.  ‘  Xenien,’  173.  Goethe  as  director  of  the  Court 
Theatre,  174.  His  dramatic  writings,  179.  ‘Natural  Daughter,’  179. 
‘Wilhelm  Meister,’  181.  Tales,  186.  ‘Alexis und Dora,’  187.  ‘Hermann 
und  Dorothea,’  187.  ‘Achilleis,’  194.  Ballads,  195.  Social  Songs, 

196.  Allegorical  Dramas,  197. 

Schiller . 199 

Youthful  poems,  200.  ‘Don  Carlos,’  201.  Political  opinions,  203. 
Philosophy  and  History,  204.  Poems,  206.  Dramas,  208.  ‘  Wallen¬ 
stein,’  208.  ‘Maria  Stuart,’  215.  ‘  Maid  of  Orleans,’  218.  ‘Bride  of 
Messina,’  220.  ‘  Wilhelm  Tell,’  224.  ‘  Demetrius,’  228. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 


Romanticism  ...........  229 

Poet-families,  229.  Storm  and  Stress,  230.  Classical  taste,  230. 
Romanticism,  230. 

Science . 231 

German  prose,  231.  Literary  women,  232.  Philosophy,  233. 
Mathematics  and  Natural  Philosophy,  235.  Cosmology  and  Alex- 


of  Volume  II. 


ander  von  Humboldt,  23 6.  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt  and  the  Science 
of  Man.  238.  Theology,  241.  Philology  and  History,  243.  (Critical 
spirit,  comparative  method,  244.  Historical  method,  245.  History, 
24;.  Philology,  247.)  The  older  Romantic  school,  248.  Tieck, 
249.  A.  W.  Schlegel.  250.  Fr.  Schlegel,  231.  Later  Romantic 
School,  252.  Arnim  and  Brentano,  252.  Gorres,  252.  Jacob  and 
Wilhelm  Grimm,  253.  Uhland,  255.  Goethe,  256. 

Lyric  Poetry . 

School  of  Hagedom,  259.  School  of  Haller,  259.  Matthisson,  260. 
Holderlin,  261.  Poetry  in  local  dialects,  262.  Hebei,  262.  Usteri, 
263.  Older  romantic  school,  263.  Novalis,  263.  Tieck,  264.  The 
Schlegels,  264.  Patriotic  poetry,  265.  Arnim ;  Collin  ;  H.  v. 
Kleist ;  Fouque ;  Schenkendorf ;  Stagemann ;  Riickert ;  Komer, 
265.  E.  M.  Arndt,  266.  The  Swabian  school,  2f>8.  Justinus 
Kerner.  269.  Uhland,  269.  North  Germans,  Chamisso,  Eichen- 
dorff,  Wilhelm  Muller,  271.  Goethe,  272.  (‘  Westostlicher  Divan,’ 

273.  ‘  Trilogie  der  Leidenschaft,’ 275.)  Riickert,  275.  Platen,  277. 

Heinrich  Heine,  278.  ‘  Reisebilder’  280.  Songs  set  to  music,  Franz 

Schubert,  281. 

Narrative  writing . 

Epics,  282.  Novels,  283.  Semi-Historical,  284.  Classical  and 
chivalrous  Novels,  285.  Ghost  Stories,  287.  Didactic  Novels,  287. 
Novels  of  domestic  life,  288.  Satirical  and  humorous  romances,  289. 
Hippel,  289.  Jean  Paul,  290.  Tales,  293.  H.  v.  Kleist,  295. 
Arnim,  Fouque,  Chamisso,  295.  Hoffmann,  296.  Eichendorff,  297. 
Goethe,  297.  ‘Wilhelm  Meister,’  297.  ‘  Wahlverwandschaften,’  298. 

The  Drama . 

Goethe,  301.  ‘Pandora,’  302.  Korner,  Ohlenschlager,  Zacharias 
Werner,  303.  The1  Fate-tragedies,’  304.  Historical  plays,  305.  Platen, 
306.  Kleist,  306.  Drama  in  Vienna,  310.  Grillparzer,  312. 
Ferdinand  Raimund,  314. — ‘  Faust,  ’316.  History  of  the  legend,  316. 
Popular  Drama  of  Faust,  317.  Treatment  of  the  Faust  Legend 
by  Lessing  and  others,  318.  First  part  of  Goethe’s  Faust,  319. 
Analysis  of  Faust,  320.  Second  part,  323.  Metre  and  style,  326. 
Gretchen,  327.  Helena,  330.  Male  characters,  331.  Mephisto, 
332.  Faust,  332. 


Appendix  .... 
Chronological  Table 
Bibliographical  Appendix 
Index  . 


•  • 
Vll 

PAGE 


259 


282 


301 


337 

337 

353 

405 


- 


- 


I 


* 


CHAPTER  XI. 


THE  AGE  OF  FREDERICK  THE  GREAT. 


Frederick  the  Great  reigned  from  1740  to  1786.  When  he 

began  to  reign  Gottsched  was  the  leading  German  writer ;  when  he 

died  Goethe  was  preparing  for  his  Italian  journey,  and  was  just 

completing  his  ‘  Iphigenie.’  This  interval  of  forty-six  years  is  a 

period  of  unparalleled  literary  and  aesthetic  progress,  ^ 

and  though  personally  the  king  rather  held  aloof  from  progress  in 

the  movement,  yet  his  home  and  foreign  policy  contri-  Frederick’s 

buted  powerfully  to  its  advancement.  Everywhere  we  reign, 

,  ,  *  r  /.  .  1  ,  1740-1780. 

find  traces  01  his  influence ;  everywhere  men  s  eyes 

were  fixed  upon  one,  who  could  so  stir  their  minds  and  stimulate 

their  zeal,  who  could  incite  other  rulers  to  follow  his  example,  and 

awaken  even  the  admiration  of  his  enemies. 

The  rise  of  modern  German  literature  is  connected  with  the 
Seven  Years’  War,  just  as  the  rise  of  Middle  High-German  chivalrous 
poetry  was  connected  with  the  first  Italian  campaigns  of  Frederick 
Barbarossa.  Poets  were  to  be  found  among  the  officers  of  the 
Prussian  king  just  as  among  the  knightly  followers  of  the  old 
emperor.  And  though  Frederick  the  Great  gathered  French 
writers  around  him,  and  had  no  great  confidence  in  Frederick's 
the  literary  powers  of  his  own  people,  yet  the  very  French 

annoyance  which  this  caused  them  was  but  a  new  tastes, 

incitement  to  exert  their  powers  to  the  utmost,  and  prove  to  the 
King  that  he  was  mistaken  in  his  judgment. 

A  small  group  of  Saxon  poets  alone  remained  unaffected  either 
directly  or  indirectly  by  Frederick’s  influence;  but  these  very 
poets  -were  in  point  of  taste  most  akin  to  him,  for  their  culture,  like 
his,  was  chiefly  derived  from  the  French ;  it  owed  its  characteristic 
features  to  that  phase  of  German  taste  which  had  been  inaugurated 


VOL.  11. 


B 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


<1 


under  Frederick’s  grandfather,  and  which  had  subsequently  diffused 
.pkg  itself  more  and  more.  It  was  in  Prussia  that  French 

Leipzig  Classicism  first  found  a  sympathetic  reception,,  and 

poets.  Prussians  like  Wernicke  and  Gottsched  were  its  most 
devoted  apostles;  but  it  was  in  Leipzig  that  it  established  its 
head-quarters. 

Leipzig. 

During  the  Seven  Years’  War  Frederick  the  Great  paid  repeated 
Relations  of  visits  to  Leipzig,  and  did  not  neglect  the  opportunity 
Frederick  0f  acquainting  himself  a  little  with  the  state  of  contem- 

Gottsched  Poraneous  German  poetry.  He  sent  for  the  two  Pro- 
and  fessors,  Gottsched  and  Gellert ;  the  former  he  received 
Gellert.  on  October  15,  1757,  the  latter  on  December  18, 1760. 
Gottsched  he  frequently  saw  after  this;  Gellert  too  received  a 
friendly  invitation  to  come  again,  but  never  availed  himself  of  it. 
Gottsched  read  him  his  translation  of  Racine’s  ‘  Iphig^nie,’  but  the 
king  was  not  much  impressed  by  it.  Gellert  was  made  to  recite 
one  of  his  fables,  and  this  gained  the  Royal  favour.  ‘  That  is 
beautiful,’  he  said  to  Gellert,  ‘  very  beautiful ;  there  is  such  a  lilt 
about  it  (‘  so  was  Coulantes  ’),  I  can  understand  all  that ;  but  there 
was  Gottsched  now,  who  read  me  his  translation  of  “  Iphigenie,” 
and  though  I  had  the  French  in  my  hand  at  the  same  time,  I  could 
not  understand  a  word.  They  also  brought  another  poet  to  me, 
one  Pietsch,  but  I  dismissed  him.’  1  Your  majesty,’  answered 
Gellert,  ‘  him  I  also  dismiss.’  We  remember  that  Gottsched  de¬ 
clared  this  very  Pietsch,  his  teacher,  to  be  the  greatest  poet  of  the 
eighteenth  century. 

When  Gellert  was  gone,  Frederick  remarked,  ‘  That  is  quite  a 
different  man  from  Gottsched.’  And  the  next  day  at  table  he 
called  him  the  most  sensible  among  all  the  German  scholars. 

Three  years  before  this,  the  king  had  written  a  French  poem  to 
Gottsched,  in  which  he  eulogized  him  as  the  Saxon  swan,  and 
assigned  to  him  the  task  of  founding  the  literary  reputation  of 
Germany.  Gottsched  hastened  to  have  these  verses  published 
and  translated  into  several  European  languages.  But  when  they 
appeared  among  the  king’s  collected  works,  they  bore  the  inscrip- 


Leipzig. 


(/h.  xi.]  I^eipzig.  3 

tion  :  ‘  Au  Sieur  Gellei't !  The  author  had  meanwhile  altered  the 
address. 

The  German  public  agreed  with  their  great  king  in  thinking 
Gellert  quite  a  different  man  from  Gottsched.  Even  QQiierfc 
before  the  end  of  his  life  Gottsched  was  looked  upon  preferred 
as  a  fallen  hero,  while  Gellert  is  esteemed  even  in  our  to 
days.  Gottsched  aimed  at  making  an  impression  in  Gottsched- 
high  circles,  but  he  only  succeeded  in  making  his  way  into  a  few 
small  German  courts;  Gellert  sought  his  readers  in  the  middle- 
classes,  and  found  them  in  all  ranks  of  society.  Gottsched  was 
only  acquainted  with  the  outward  tricks  of  poetry ;  Gellert  was  a 
true  poet,  though  in  a  narrow  sphere. 

Gottsched  wished  to  make  Leipzig  the  centre  of  German 
literature,  and  the  place  could  not  have  been  better  Advantages 
chosen.  Leipzig  united  the  features  of  a  large  town  cf  Leipzig 
with  those  of  a  flourishing  University.  It  was  the  as  a  literary 
most  important  commercial  emporium  of  the  Saxon-  centre- 
Polish  Empire,  and  the  centre  of  the  trade  between  the  Romanic 
West  and  the  Slavic  East.  In  the  eighteenth  century  it  became, 
the  centre  of  the  book-trade,  ousting  Frankfort  from  the  leading 
position  which  it  had  hitherto  occupied.  Its  fairs  were  the  scene 
of  most  varied  life,  collecting,  as  they  did,  men  of  all  nationalities, 
and  bringing  long  caravans  of  merchants  from  a  great  distance. 
The  best  troops  of  actors  in  Germany  always  went  to  the  ‘  Leipziger 
Messed  Everyone  liked  going  to  1  gallant  ’  Leipzig,  as  it  was 
called,  to  Little  Paris  on  the  Pleisse,  where  the  whole  world  was  to 
be  found  in  miniature.  As  early  as  the  fifteenth  century  Leipzig 
was  famed  for  its  politeness,  and  even  its  students  acquired  some¬ 
thing  of  its  refinement.  The  rude  manners  of  the  smaller  Uni¬ 
versity  towns  were  tabooed  there,  and  young  aristocrats  studied  by 
preference  in  Leipzig.  The  town  had  no  court,  no  local  aris¬ 
tocracy,  no  garrison  ;  but  its  burghers  strove  after  moral  and 
intellectual  culture,  and  Leipzig  was  considered  the  most  educated 
town  in  Germany.  The  University,  with  its  hereditary  oligarchy 
of  Professors,  orthodox  and  conservative,  proud  of  their  vast 
knowledge,  which  they  were  perhaps  more  intent  on  transmitting 
than  on  increasing,  was  yet  alive  to  the  general  interests  of  culture. 


B  2 


4 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


The  book-trade  drew  into  its  service  scholars,  both  old  and  young, 
and  was  of  great  advantage  to  authors  on  the  spot.  Nowhere  did 
literary  journalism  flourish  as  in  Leipzig,  and  nowhere  else  was  it 
so  easy  to  become  an  author  as  there. 

Gottsched  knew  how  to  make  the  best  of  such  a  favourable 
Gottsched’s  situation,  and  put  forth  all  his  great  personal  energy 
literary  and  his  wonderful  power  of  organization,  in  order  to 
aspirations.  carry  out  his  own  ajms>  He  noticed  that  French 

literature  was  centralised,  subjected  to  fixed  rules,  and  protected,  as 
it  were,  by  an  Academy  ;  this  Academy  kept  guard  over  the  purity 
of  the  language,  and  saw  that  the  rules  were  followed ;  it  pro¬ 
duced  a  grammar  and  a  dictionary,  it  taught  the  right  use  of 
synonymous  terms,  it  distributed  honours,  and  decided  what  was 
beautiful.  Gottsched  wished  to  make  Leipzig,  in  a  literary  aspect, 
the  German  Paris,  and  to  raise  the  Leipzig  ‘  German  Society’  to  the 
His  rank  of  an  Academie  Allemande  ;  he  himself,  its  senior 
German  member,  wished  to  have  been  the  president  of  the 
Academy.  Academy,  and  to  have  stood  at  the  head  of  the 
German  world  of  letters.  Ambition  and  patriotism  pointed  to  the 
same  goal,  and  he  taxed  his  energies  to  the  utmost  to  gain  for 
German  literature  what  the  French  already  possessed. 

He  was,  as  we  know,  a  disciple  of  Wolff.  His  ‘  World-Wisdom  ’ 
(1734)  is  a  text-book  of  the  Wolffian  philosophy. 
Clearness  and  intelligibility,  the  ideals  of  the  Wolffian 
philosophy  and  the  special  attributes  of  the  French 
mind,  were  by  Gottsched  transferred  to  German  lan¬ 
guage  and  style.  He  wrote  a  German  grammar,  or 
‘  Art  of  language,’  a  book  which  had  the  widest  influence,  and 
which  ir  many  points  fixed  the  rules  of  language  as  they  have 
remained  to  our  day.  He  furnished  some  teaching  on  the  use  of 
synonyms,  and  planned  a  dictionary  such  as  Adelung  afterwards 
carried  out ;  the  latter  was  a  scholar  of  great  versatility,  but  of 
limited  aesthetic  culture,  like  Gottsched  himself,  and  succeeded  him 
as  legislator  in  language. 

But  good  taste  and  correct  style  were  regarded  as  even  more 
important  than  a  fixed  grammar.  Gottsched  wrote  an  ‘Art  of  Rhe¬ 
toric’  and  a  ‘  Critical  Art  of  Poetry,’  based  on  classical  and  French 


His 
‘  Welt- 
weisheit,’ 
and  his 
Grammar. 


Leipzig. 


Ch.  XL] 


models.  Horace  and  Boileau  were  to  him  what  Scaliger  and  Ron- 
sard  had  been  to  Opitz.  He  compiled  a  small  die- 
tionary  of  belles-lettres  and  liberal  arts,  a  book  full  of  <  Redekurmt  ’ 
useful  information.  He  wrote  many  papers  and  essays  and  ‘Kri- 
on  literary  history ;  he  tried  to  survey  the  whole  field  tlsctie  Dicht- 
of  German  literature,  and  till  the  present  century, 
till  Jacob  Grimm  and  his  associates,  no  one  showed  such  an  ex¬ 
tensive  knowledge  of  early  German  literature  as  Gott-  A  , 

°  J  His  study 

sched.  He  gave  his  attention  both  to  Old  High-  Gf  early 

German  and  Middle  High-German  poetry  and  prose,  German 

wrote  papers  on  Veldecke’s  JEneid  and  on  Old-German  llterature- 
morals,  and  translated  ‘  Reinecke  Fuchs’  into  modern  German 
prose.  He  devoted  some  of  the  articles  in  his  small  dictionary  to 
Walther  von  der  Vogelweide  and  other  Minnesingers;  he  in¬ 
tended  to  write  a  history  of  the  German  drama,  and  he  gathered 
together  the  materials  for  it  and  arranged  them  chronologically.  In 
all  these  endeavours  he  was  actuated  by  the  same  motives  of 
national  pride  and  patriotic  emulation  which  had  animated  the 
scholars  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries ;  he  held  up  all 
the  treasures  of  a  past  literature  before  the  eyes  of  those  who 
despised  the  Germans,  to  show  them  what  his  country  could 
achieve. 

Gottsched  exercised  a  practical  influence  by  his  example  and  by 
his  teaching ;  the  more  so  as  he  was  not  too  proud  to  take  a 
warm,  indeed  a  supreme  interest  in  contemporary  literature.  He 
thought  it  no  dishonour  to  his  professorial  chair  to  try  his  hand  at 
writing  German  poems,  or  for  the  advancement  of  German  poetry 
to  associate  with  actors  and  give  them  his  advice.  He  succeeded 
in  persuading  the  Leipzig  actors  to  adopt  an  improved  1  Hig 
form  of  stage,  after  the  French  model,  and  by  his  own  dramatic 

activity,  by  inciting  others  to  help  him,  and  by  reforms, 

numerous  translations,  he  enriched  their  re'pertoire  of  plays.  He 
made  tragedy  his  speciality,  and  only  wrote  one  somewhat  clumsy 
pastoral-play ;  comedy  he  left  to  the  lighter  talent  of  his  wife,  the.^ 
much-extolled  ‘  clever  friend,’  Luise  Adelgunde  Victoria,  ne'e 
Kulmus.  Other  original  German  writers  were  net  altogether  want¬ 
ing  at  this  time,  but  their  works  were  almost  all  indifferent  or  bad. 


6 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


Corneille,  Racine,  and  Voltaire  now  became  the  presiding  geniuses 
of  German  tragedy;  Moliere,  Dufresny,  and  Destouches  supplied 
the  audience  with  merriment,  and  even  the  coarser  farces  of  the 
Danish  writer,  Holberg,  were  welcomed  on  the  German  stage, 
since  they  were  the  productions  of  a  celebrated  scholar. 

Gottsched  was  also  an  assiduous  journalist,  and  this  enabled  him 
His  to  bring  all  his  various  literary  interests  before  the 
journalism,  world.  During  thirty-four  years  of  his  life  he  pub¬ 
lished  newspapers,  which  he  skilfully  edited,  and  for  the  most  part 
wrote  himself.  His  position  at  the  University  enabled  him  to 
gather  young  men  around  him,  or  to  employ  them  as  collaborators. 
He  had  numerous  translations  made,  and  in  so  doing  he  rendered 
a  service  not  only  to  literature,  but  to  the  cause  of  general  en¬ 
lightenment.  The  most  important  English  weekly  papers,  Bayle’s 
Dictionary,  Leibniz’s  ‘  Theodicee,’  the  works  of  Fontenelle,  were 
through  his  labours,  and  through  those  of  his  wife  and  other  fellow- 
workers,  rendered  accessible  to  German  readers.  If  we  pass  in 
review  his  work  in  this  direction,  his  contributions  to  the  history  of 
literature,  his  strong  interest  in  the  Drama,  his  union  of  theory  and 
history,  of  poetical  and  journalistic  activity,  and  of  original  work  and 
translation,  and  if  we  ask  who  was  his  successor  in  all  these 
respects,  as  Adelung  was  in  his  linguistic  labours,  the  answer 
cannot  be  doubtful.  Lessing  was  Gottsched’s  heir,  Lessing,  the 
greatest  literary  and  art  critic,  the  greatest  translator,  dramatist 
and  dramaturgist  in  Germany  in  the  period  following  Gottsched. 
But  Lessing  was  not  only  Gottsched’s  heir,  but  Gottsched’s  de¬ 
stroyer.  He  felt  that  Gottsched’s  influence  fettered  and  hindered 
him,  and  in  order  to  free  himself  from  it,  no  means  seemed  to  him 
too  strong,  no  words  too  bitter,  no  judgment  too  harsh. 

Down  to  the  last  years  of  his  life  Gottsched  continued  to  render 
,  real  services  to  the  German  language  and  to  the  history 

(jrOttSCH8&  S 

decline  of  German  literature.  But  step  by  step  the  nation 
begins  about  had  deserted  him,  and  the  authors  who  would  have 
nothing  to  do  with  him  became  more  and  more 
numerous.  As  a  creative  poet  he  had  never  accomplished  any¬ 
thing  worthy  of  notice;  his  poems  are  absurd;  his  dramas  are 
either  not  original  or  else  quite  useless,  a  miserable  patchwork  of 


Ch.  XI.] 


Leipzig. 


7 


borrowed  ideas  badly  cobbled  together,  and  far  removed  from  that 
correctness  which  he  was  always  advocating  as  all-important.  His 
labours  as  a  literary  and  art  critic  lost  more  and  more  in  importance 
as  German  literature  grew  strong  enough  to  dispense  with  the  French 
leading-strings,  and  passed  from  imitation  to  original  production. 
His  stand-point  was  the  same  as  that  which  had  been  adopted  by 
Canitz,  Besser,  Neukirch,  and  Pietsch,  and  he  wished  to  impose  this 
stand-point  permanently  on  the  whole  nation.  Pie  attacked  the  Lo- 
hensteinian  taste  as  Wernicke  had  done,  and  he  scented  Lohenstein 
wherever  he  met  with  a  loftier  flight  of  fancy,  a  more  exalted  style 
of  diction,  or  an  unusual  figure  of  speech.  His  influence  was  at  its 
height  between  the  years  1730  and  1740,  but  after  that  it  gradually 
declined ;  he  still  sought  to  play  the  dictator,  but  no  one  obeyed 
him  except  a  few  insignificant  people,  who,  along  with  himself, 
excited  general  contempt.  In  the  year  1739  he  quar¬ 
relled  with  his  Academy,  the  German  Society  in 
Leipzig.  In  the  year  1740  his  celebrated  dispute 
began  with  the  Zurich  scholars,  Bodmer  and  Breitin- 
ger,  and  their  adherents.  In  1741  the  Neuber  £  troupe ’ 
caricatured  him  on  the  Leipzig  stage  under  the  name 
of  ‘  Fault-finder  ’ .(‘  Tadler  ’).  This  action  was  much  applauded  from 
Dresden,  where  Gottsched  had  never  gained  any  firm  footing,  and 
Rost,  a  former  pupil  of  the  dictator’s,  celebrated  the  event  in  a 
.satirical  epic.  In  the  year  1744  the  most  talented 
Leipzig  poets,  Gellert,  Rabener,  and  Zacharia,  ceased  to 
contribute  as  hitherto  to  the  ‘  Belustigungen  des  Ver- 
standes  und  Witzes,’  a  paper  conducted  by  Magister 
Schwabe,  a  disciple  of  Gottsched’s,  agreeably  to  his 
master’s  views  and  in  the  interest  of  his  party,  and 
started  on  their  own  account  a  paper  entitled  the 
‘Bremen  Contributions.’  In  1748  appeared  Klop- 
stock’s  ‘  Messias/  and  the  violent  attack  which  Gottsched  made  on 
him  only  proved  detrimental  to  his  own  reputation.  G.ottsched>3 
In  the  year  1752  Koch,  a  theatre-manager  at  Leipzig,  quarrel  with 
produced  on  his  stage  an  operetta  of  English  origin,  Klopstock 
‘  Der  Teufel  ist  los.’  Gottsched  could  not  tolerate  and  others‘ 
this  apparent  revival  of  the  German  opera,  which  he  hated,  and 


Gottsched’s 

dispute 

with 

Bodmer 

and 

Breitinger. 


The 

*  Bremer 
Beitrage  * 
started  in 
opposition 
to 

Gottsched, 

1744. 


8 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[ch.  xr. 


accordingly  he  attacked  it  himself  and  persuaded  others  to  attack 
it  in  pamphlets.  Koch  answered,  speaking  from  his  own  stage,  and 
had  the  laughers  on  his  side.  A  long  literary  war  now  began  ;  Rost 
was  at  once  ready  with  his  pen,  and  wrote  in  doggrel  verses  a  witty 
Epistle  from  the  -Devil  to  Gottsched ;  this  he  caused  to  be  dis¬ 
tributed  gratuitously,  and  also  arranged  that  Gottsched  himself,  who 
was  just  then  on  a  journey  to  the  Palatinate,  should  have  a  sealed 
packet,  containing  several  copies,  handed  to  him  at  every  post¬ 
station  on  his  route.  Gottsched  made  a  personal  complaint  to  the 
Minister  Briihl,  whose  secretary  Rost  was,  but  the  minister  had  the 
cruelty  .to  pretend  he  knew  nothing  about  it;  Gottsched  had  him¬ 
self  to  read  out  the  lampoon  in  Rost’s  presence,  and  was  then  only 
told,  by  way  of  good  advice,  that  it  was  surely  better  simply  to 
ignore  such  practical  jokes  altogether.  After  that  he  took  no 
further  active  interest  in  the  German  stage,  and  in  1769  Lessing 
denied  that  the  stage  owed  anything  to  his  efforts.  Six  years  later, 
at  the  time  when  young  Goethe  was  studying  in  Leipzig,  he  could 
thus  report  of  the  quondam  dictator,  who  had  just  given  new 
offence  by  a  second  marriage  with  a  very  young  girl :  ‘  All  Leipzig 
despises  him ;  no  one  associates  with  him.’  Goethe  himself,  how¬ 
ever,  paid  him  a  visit,  of  which,  in  later  years,  he  gave  a  most 
amusing  description.  The  former  and  the  future  leader  of  German 
literature,  whose  lives  together  embrace  the  years  from  1700  to 
1832,  did  thus  once  meet  and  converse  together. 

At  the  time  when  Goethe  was  in  Leipzig,  Gellert  set  the  literary 

Gellert’s  tone  in  the  University,  where  he  was  professor  extra- 
influence.  ordinarius.  Though  he  was  of  sickly  appearance  and 
lectured  in  a  hollow  and  whining  tone,  still  he  gathered  a  large 
circle  of  listeners  around  him,  whom  he  exhorted  alike  to  purity  of 
morals  and  purity  of  style.  His  authority  was  great  both  in  Pro¬ 
testant  and  in  Catholic  Germany,  and  he  had  correspondents,  male 
and  female,  both  among  the  aristocracy  and  the  middle-classes. 
The  soldiers  of  Frederick  the  Great,  as  well  as  their  Austrian 
opponents,  did  him  homage.  As  Melanchthon  maybe  said  to  have 
founded  the  German  school-system,  so  Gellert  may  be  said  to 
have  fashioned  German  taste.  Men  came  to  him  for  literary  as  for 
moral  advice ;  he  was  consulted  about  tutors  and  governesses,  and 


Ch.  XI.] 


Leipzig . 


9 


his  advice  was  sought  in  the  choice  of  wives  or  husbands.  ‘  To 
believe  in  Gellert,’  said  a  later  critic,  ‘  is  among  our  people  almost 
the  same  thing  as  believing  in  virtue  and  religion.’  But  the  general 
confidence  which  he  enjoyed  as  a  man  and  a  teacher  was  due 
really  to  his  extraordinary  popularity  as  a  writer. 

Gellert  tried  his  hand  in  many  branches  of  literature.  He  wrote 
pastoral  plays,  well  meant  but  crude  in  style,  comedies,  awkwardly 
composed,  yet  giving  a  faithful  reflection  of  German  His  playa 
middle-class  life,  and  a  novel  which  rambles  through  and 
distant  lands,  and  piles  up  extraordinary  phenomena  lectures, 
of  the  moral  world  in  a  somewhat  repulsive  manner.  All  these 
works  had  a  certain  success;  his  manual  of  epistolary  style  too  was 
well  received  by  the  public,  and  his  ‘  Moral  Lectures,’  published 
after  his  death,  seem  to  have  found  readers  to  appreciate  them, 
in  spite  of  what  we  should  consider  their  commonplaces.  But 
his  fame  really  rested  on  his  poetic  fables  and  tales,  which  appeared 
in  a  collected  edition  in  the  years  1746  and  1748,  almost  at  the 
same  time  as  the  first  cantos  of  Klopstock’s  ‘  Messias,’  and  his  re¬ 
ligious  odes  and  hymns,  which  were  published  in  1757. 

Gellert’s  poetic  fables  and  tales  belong  to  the  same  school  as  the 

writings  of  Hagedorn  and  his  models.  They  set  out  Qeiiert’s 

with  the  purpose  of  ‘  telling  the  truth  in  a  figure  to  Fables, 

those  who  have  not  much  understanding.’  They  were  1746  and 

J  1748 

meant  accordingly  to  be  popular  and  didactic,  simple 
and  useful.  ‘  Where  hast  thou  learnt  to  write  thus  ?  ’  said  Frederick 
the  Great  to  Gellert.  ‘In  the  school  of  Nature,’  answered  the 
poet.  ‘Thou  hast  imitated  Lafontaine?’  ‘No,  your  Majesty,  I  am 
an  original  writer.’  Still,  we  cannot  speak  of  Gellert  without  being 
reminded  of  Lafontaine,  though  at  the  same  time  we  cannot  give  to 
the  German  poet  the  unqualified  praise  lavished  by  French  critics  on 
their  great  fable-writer.  The  bourgeois-literature  of  the  sixteenth 
century  was  continued  in  Gellert,  and  he  formed  a  just  and  appreci¬ 
ative  judgment  of  the  older  German  fable-poetry.  He  himself 
wrote  more  tales  than  genuine  fables ;  his  heroes  are  more  often 
men  than  animals,  and  the  types  of  character  which  he  brings 
before  us  have  no  symbolical  and  general  value,  but  are  only  true 
in  their  particular  context.  They  are  not  types  of  humanity  as  it 


io  The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great .  [Ch.  XI. 

exists  in  all  ages,  but  are  the  men  of  that  particular  age,  described 
by  a  poet  who  formed  his  style  on  Lafontaine,  and  who  tells,  in  a 
natural  and  artistic  manner,  stories  full  of  the  charm  of  innocence 
and  cheerfulness.  His  versification  is  free  and  flowing,  and  his 
rhymes  so  unaffected  that  they  seem  almost  to  come  in  by  chance. 
His  easy  and  flexible  style  seems  to  be  but  an  idealised  form  of  the 

conversational  language  of  every-day  life ;  sometimes, 
His  style.  .  .  ,  .  ,  , 

however,  he  is  almost  too  simple  and  transparent,  and 

draws  in  coarse  outlines  as  though  for  childish  minds,  while  in 
genuine  descriptive  power  he  falls  far  short  of  Lafontaine.  As  it 
happened,  Gellert’s  readers  were  really  as  childish  as  he  reckoned 
on  their  being :  they  delighted  in  having  everything  clearly  brought 
before  them,  they  expected  to  find  in  poetry  a  better  world  than  that 
in  which  they  lived,  and  were  well  pleased  to  see  the  good  rewarded, 
the  bad  punished,  and  the  hypocrite  unmasked  and  disgraced. 
One  thing  Gellert  learnt  from  the  French  and  introduced  once 
more  into  German  art,  namely  grace,  the  most  subtle  secret  of 
poetic  charm.  Gellert,  like  Hagedorn,  devoted  himself  mainly  to 
satirical  pictures  of  contemporary  manners,  and  derived  much  of  his 
material  from  the  English  weekly  papers.  In  his  lectures  he  would 
sketch  out  moral  characters  in  the  style  of  Labruyere  and  Theo¬ 
phrastus,  in  whose  sketches  all  the  leading  characteristics  of  the  same 
type  are  accumulated  in  a  single  individual.  He  does  not  always 
borrow  his  materials  from  real  life,  but  often  from  literary  tradition. 
Thus  he  described  women  in  the  true  spirit  of  the  older  satire,  as 
fond  of  dress,  quarrelsome,  prudish  and  yet  voluptuous,  inconstant, 
gossipy,  and  somewhat  selfish,  fond  of  feigning  to  swoon  and  of  all 
kinds  of  artifices.  But  what  were  formerly  called  vices  are  now 
only  weaknesses.  Gellert  does  not  despise  women,  he  only  teases 
them;  and  with  him,  these  fi ail,  worldly,  and  imperfect  creatures  are 
almost  always  pretty  and  charming  ;  they  have  grace  and  that  subtle 
wit  for  which  the  Saxon  women  were  specially  famed,  and  they  know 
how  to  converse  with  roguish  abandon  and  charming  freedom  on 
all  the  tender  experiences  of  the  heart. 

Gellert’s  paternal  home  was  a  Saxon  parsonage,  and  he  had 
begun  by  studying  theology.  He  remained  all  his  life  a  strictly 
religious  and  scrupulously  conscientious  man.  Still  this  self- 


Ch.  XI.] 


Leipzig. 


ii 


examining  bachelor  did  his  best  to  be  a  liberal  man  of  the  world,  and 
to  entertain  tolerant  views  of  life  ;  and  pious  moralist  Gellert  s 
as  he  was,  was  still  a  disciple  of  the  ‘  enlightenment  *  character, 
movement.  With  all  his  humility,  gentleness,  and  love  of  peace,  he 
was  yet  ready  to  do  battle  for  the  cause  of  reason  and  humanity. 
It  was  part  of  his  creed  to  make  men  happy,  and  not  to  interfere 
with  their  harmless  pleasures.  He  declared  the  flatterer  of  great 
people  to  be  more  dangerous  than  the  free-thinker.  He  fought 
against  hypocrisy  and  intolerance,  against  religious  and  class 
prejudices;  but  he  only  fought  with  the  weapons  of  temperate 
warning,  and  in  his  hands  men  grew  up  docile  and  amenable  to 
reason.  It  was  not  his  way  to  rail  at  vice  directly,  but  to  enlist 
men’s  sympathies  and  admiration  on  the  side  of  virtue ;  and 
this  he  did  by  depicting  the  good  as  beautiful,  expedient,  and 
conducive  to  happiness,  thus  winning  to  the  side  of  a  not  too 
rigorous  morality  the  aesthetic  as  well  as  the  egoistic  impulses  of 
men.  As  utterances  in  song  of  the  spirit  of  liberal  Gellert’s 
religion,  Gellert’s  hymns  rank  as  classics.  Human  hymns, 
and  general  interests  preponderate  in  them.  Their  most  sacred 
aim  is  to  glorify  virtue  and  to  inculcate  the  duties  of  practical 
Christianity.  They  are  divided  by  the  author  himself  into  didactic 
odes,  and  odes  for  the  heart.  The  former  are  intended  to  furnish 
instruction  and  food  for  the  understanding,  while  the  latter  are  meant 
to  bring  home  to  our  feelings  all  that  is  sublime  and  touching  in 
religion.  But  predominance  is  given  throughout  to  teaching  and 
reflection,  and  the  heart  is  appealed  to  through  the  intellect. 
Gellert  had  the  warmest  admiration*for  the  old  church-hymns,  and 
he  speaks  with  reverence  of  the  inimitable  language  of  the  Bible, 
its  divine  sublimity  and  ravishing  simplicity.  But  he  himself  had 
not  the  language  of  the  Bible  at  his  command,  nor  did  he  profess 
that  strength  of  conviction  and  emotion  which  alone  lends  power 
to  the  word.  He  took  extreme  pains  to  elaborate  the  form  of  his 
sacred  songs,  availing  himself  even  of  the  help  of  his  friends  in  the 
work,  but  he  permitted  things  notorious  for  their  bad  taste  to  re¬ 
main  in  them.  Still,  his  hymns  must  not  be  rejected  as  a 
whole  on  account  of  a  fault  here  and  there.  No  one  can  listen 
without  the  deepest  emotion  to  those  six  hymns  of  his  which  have 


12  The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great.  [Ch.  xi. 

been  set  to  powerful  music  by  Beethoven;  and  it  was  Gellert’s 
words  which  inspired  that  music. 

Gellert  died  in  1769,  at  the  age  of  54  ;  he  did  not  live  to  see  the 
great  literary  awakening  which  took  place  during  the  next  ten 
Gellert’s  years.  Round  him  clustered  a  circle  of  able  lite- 
disciples.  rary  men,  some  of  whom  were  really  distinguished : 
Gartner,  Rabener,  Konrad  Arnold  Schmid  of  Liineburg,  the 
three  Schlegels,  Cramer,  Ebert,  Giseke,  and  Zacharia.  Klop- 
stock  too,  though  less  in  sympathy  with  Gellert,  belonged  to 
the  same  group,  and  in  1747  he  celebrated  these  poets  in  an 
ode,  entitled  ‘An  meine  Freunde/  which  he  later  on  changed 
to  ‘  Wingolf/  The  members  of  this  circle  were  mostly  natives 
of  Upper  Saxony,  or  of  some  part  of  central  Germany,  and 
had  received  a  thorough  classical  training  at  the  Saxon  princely 
schools ;  they  all  studied  in  Leipzig,  and  mostly  devoted  them¬ 
selves  to  the  clerical  or  the  teaching  profession.  Their  literary 
organ  for  four  years  (1744-48)  was  the  ‘  ffeue  Beitrage  zum 
The  ‘Bremer  Vergniigen  des  Verstandes  und  Witzes/  the  so-called 
Beitrage.’  <  Bremer  Beitrage/  The  contributors  to  this  paper 
mostly  followed  in  Hagedorn’s  steps ;  they  polished  their  writings 
industriously,  and  attained  to  great  smoothness  and  correctness  in 
form.  They  declared  from  the  first  that  they  meant  to  be  cheerful, 
and  to  try  to  afford  both  pleasing  and  profitable  reading  for  the 
boudoir.  Thus,  besides  serious  and  moral  subjects,  they  sang 
and  told  of  love  and  friendship,  drinking  and  dancing,  roses  and 
zephyrs.  They  published  religious  odes,  and  Klopstock’s  ‘  Messias  ’ 
first  saw  the  light  in  their  columns;  but  they  also  imitated  Horace 
and  Anacreon.  They  tried  to  draw  tender  pictures  of  the  feelings, 
and  asserted  that  ‘  to  enjoy  life  was  the  command  of  Nature.’  They 
hoped  that  an  Athens  or  at  least  a  Paris  would  arise  in  Germany, 
where  good  taste  in  literature  would  purify  the  tone  of  society,  and 
where  men  would  learn  to  speak  and  jest  more  elegantly,  and  con¬ 
verse  in  a  livelier  way  upon  serious  topics.  Meanwhile  their 
imagination  peopled  Leipzig  with  shepherds  and  shepherdesses  full 
of  coquettish  naivete  and  grace ;  these  masques  of  the  Renaissance 
had  not  even  yet  lost  their  charm,  and  were  adopted  as  a  matter  of 
course  in  love-poems  and  love-dramas.  The  small  china  figures  of 


Ch.  XI.] 


Leipzig. 


1 3 


people  in  pastoral  costume,  well-dressed  and  powdered,  richly  be- 
laced  and  be-ribboned,  and  advancing  in  stately  minuet  steps,  bring 
before  our  eyes,  even  at  this  distance  of  time,  the  ‘  painted  doll- 
ideals/  as  Goethe  called  them,  of  this  class  of  poetry. 

None  of  the  writers  in  the  ‘  Bremen  Contributions  ’  can  be  com¬ 
pared  in  fame  and  influence  to  Gellert  and  Klopstock,  and  but  few 
of  them  have  any  striking  individuality.  The  learned  Cramer  and 
Cramer  wrote  numerous  hymns,  and  sermons  full  of  Ebert, 
solemn  rhetoric.  Ebert  composed  cheerful  songs  of  love  and  wine, 
and  translated  much  from  English.  Rabener  distinguished  himself 
in  satire,  Zacharia  in  the  burlesque  epic,  Elias  Schlegel  in  the  drama, 
and  these  three  men  exerted  a  marked  influence,  although  the  style 
and  kind  of  writing  to  which  they  adhered  has  been  superseded  in 
the  maturer  poetry  of  a  later  epoch. 

Rabener  was  a  revenue  officer  in  Leipzig  and  Dresden.  He  died 
in  1771.  at  the  age  of  fifty-seven.  In  choosing  the  sub-  Rabener, 
jects  of  his  satire  he  found  himself  limited  on  every  1714-1771. 
side ;  public  affairs  were  forbidden  by  the  strict  Saxon  Hls  satires- 
censorship,  and  derision  of  private  characters  excited  the  resent¬ 
ment  of  those  who  felt  themselves  hit.  Rabener  made  a  virtue  of 
necessity.  He  declared  that  a  true  satirist  shrank  from  the  very 
thought  of  offending  religion  or  princes,  and  protested  that  the 
characters  of  his  fools  had  no  personal  application,  but  only  a 
general  one,  for  there  was  not  one  amongst  them  which  did  not 
apply  indifferently  to  a  dozen  actual  fools.  Rabener’s  private 
letters  contain  many  remarks  on  the  state  of  affairs  in  Saxony, 
full  of  patriotic  wrath  and  asperity.  But  there  is  nothing  of  this  in 
his  satires ;  there  he  seeks  out  harmless  fools,  and  arranges  a  whole 
gallery  of  them,  as  Sebastian  Brand  and  Thomas  Murner,  and  later 
on  Johann  Lauremberg  and  Christian  Weise  had  done  before  him. 
Gellert  brought  the  fable  of  the  sixteenth  century  to  a  classic  per¬ 
fection,  and  Rabener,  although  he  always  uses  prose,  seems  to 
continue  the  work  of  the  older  masters  of  satire,  and  is  the  last 
representative  of  that  line  of  writers.  He  surpasses  the  older  satirists 
in  elegance  and  variety,  but  he  does  not  come  up  to  them  in  force. 
He  was  indebted  to  the  English  weekly  papers  and  to  the  writings 
of  Swift,  and  is  a  kindred  spirit  to  Lucian,  Cervantes,  and  the  Danish 


14 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great . 


[Ch.  XI. 


Holberg.  He  is  inexhaustible  in  new  forms  of  writing;  now 
he  gives  us  ironical  eulogies,  such  as  the  Humanists  loved,  now  he 
relates  a  fairy-story  or  a  dream,  now  he  communicates  to  us  a  bit  of 
a  chronicle,  a  death-list,  or  a  will.  Sometimes  he  chooses  the  form 
of  a  treatise,  sometimes  that  of  a  dictionary.  Sometimes  he  uses 
parody  as  his  instrument,  sometimes  he  clothes  his  satire  in  the 
epistolary  form,  as  had  been  done  by  the  authors  of  the  ‘  Epistolae 
Obscurorum  Virorum/  The  modern  reader  would  soon  be  weary 
of  him  ;  his  writings,  with  their  mild  jokes,  were  specially  calcu¬ 
lated  for  the  domestic  German  middle -classes  of  his  day,  and 
between  them  and  us  a  wide  chasm  intervenes.  The  art  of 
delineating  individual  character  does  not  reach  a  high  level  in  his 
writings,  if  we  measure  them  by  the  great  models,  but  it  is  there, 
nevertheless,  and  Rabener’s  poems  helped  beyond  a  doubt  to  render 
the  psychological  and  moral  insight  of  his  contemporaries  more 
subtle  and  acute. 

In  close  connection  with  the  satire  stands  the  mock-heroic 
The  mock-  poem,  which  first  appeared  under  the  form  of  the 
heroic  poem,  animal-epic,  then  in  the  fifteenth  century  chose 
peasants  as  its  characters,  and  finally  in  the  seventeenth  century 
received  its  modern  form  at  the  hands  of  Italian  writers,  who 
found  imitators  in  Boileau,  Pope,  and  the  German  Zacharia.  Un¬ 
important  events  were  treated  of  in  the  style  of  the  Iliad ;  dreams, 
oracles,  and  omens  were  introduced,  and  the  diffuse  narrative  was 
adorned  by  long  drawn-out  similes ;  human  beings  were  surrounded 
by  a  legion  of  imaginary  gods,  protecting  spirits  and  demons,  who 
fight  their  battles  for  them,  guide  their  resolutions,  and  decide  their 
fortunes.  The  contrast  between  the  insignificance  of  the  object 
and  the  grandeur  of  the  apparatus  for  bringing  it  about  affords 
great  amusement,  while  the  requisite  epic  breadth  of  treatment 
leads  to  detailed  descriptions  of  the  interests  and  manners  of  daily 
Zacharia’s  life  under  all  circumstances.  Zacharia  wrote  a  series 

1  Renom-  of  these  poems,  among  which  his  earliest,  ‘  Der 
mist‘  Renommist/  is  most  worthy  of  notice,  for  in  this 
case  the  youthful  poet  was  intimately  acquainted  with  the  sphere 
of  life  which  he  described,  and  followed  in  a  path  which  had 
been  successfully  trodden  by  various  writers  since  the  sixteenth 


Ch.  XI.] 


Leipzig. 


15 


century.  His  hero  is  an  old  Jena  student,  Raufbold  by  name, 
who  comes  to  Leipzig,  where  he  revels  and  brawls  with  old  Jena 
comrades,  and  even  gives  the  constables  a  flogging ;  but  he  falls 
so  deeply  in  love  with  a  Leipzig  beauty,  that  for  her  sake  he  puts 
on  a  more  civilised  appearance,  and  has  his  head  treated  by  a 
French  hairdresser;  but  he  only  earns  thereby  his  lady’s  ridicule, 
and  after  a  duel  with  her  favourite,  a  gallant  student  of  Leipzig,  in 
which  he  is  himself  worsted,  he  retires  abashed  to  Halle.  The 
contrast  which  actually  existed,  between  the  roughness  of  the 
Jena  and  Halle  men  and  the  refined  manners  of  the  Leipzig 
students,  has  been  very  happily  turned  to  account.  Gallantry, 
Fashion,  and  similar  allegorical  figures  people  the  necessary 
Olympus.  A  few  scenes  are  quite  excellent,  but  the  author  too  often 
falls  back  upon  mere  description.  He  holds  the  scale  impartially 
between  the  gallant  and  the  boor,  giving  the  preference  to  neither ; 
in  fact  he  contemns  and  ridicules  both,  and  is  as  hostile  to  the 
French  fashion  as  any  satirist  of  the  seventeenth  century.  We  are 
reminded  of  Moscherosch  as  we  read  of  the  people  ‘  who  are  never 
to  be  relied  on,  who  forget  their  promises  in  treaties  as  in  marriage, 
and  look  down  with  pity  on  German  faithfulness.’  In  a  similar 
strain,  Gottsched’s  wife,  in  one  of  her  comedies,  wrote  against  French 
governesses  and  the  demoralisation  which  they  introduced  into 
German  homes.  The  Gottschedians  and  the  writers  for  the 
*  Bremer  Beitrage  ’  rivalled  each  other  in  patriotic  feeling,  and,  like 
the  novel  -  writers  Lohenstein  and  Bucholtz  before  them,  they 
sought  for  congenial  subjects  in  early  German  times.  Arminius, 
the  liberator  from  the  Romans,  and  Henry  the  Fowler,  the  subduer 
of  the  Hungarians,  became  favourite  heroes.  They  have  been 
celebrated  by  Elias  Schlegel,  Cramer,  Klopstock,  the  Gottschedian 
von  Schonaich  and  others,  in  epics,  dramas,  and  Pindaric  odes. 

Among  all  the  Leipzig  poets,  Elias  Schlegel  was  perhaps  the 
one  who  excited  the  greatest  expectations,  and  in  Elias 
many  respects  he  may  be  considered  the  forerunner  of  Schlegel, 
Lessing.  He  wrote  tragedies  and  comedies,  and  passed  died  1749* 
from  imitation  of  the  French  to  imitation  of  the  Greeks ;  he  com¬ 
pared  Shakspeare  with  Gryphius,  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  rules  of  Aristotle  were  sometimes  better  observed  in  English 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


16 


than  in  French  tragedy.  He  aimed  more  and  more  at  establishing 
a  national  literature,  and  abandoned  classical  myths  for  subjects 
chosen  from  German  and  Northern  history.  But  he  died  in 
Denmark  at  an  early  age,  in  1749.  The  advances  which  he  made 
in  theory  did  not  exercise  any  direct  influence  on  German  literature, 
and  his  literary  achievements  hardly  rose  above  the  level  of  the 
productions  of  the  strict  Gottschedians.  His  comedies  are  only 
French  comedies  in  the  German  language ;  in  his  tragedies  the 
French  technique  is  always  apparent,  and  both  his  tragedies  and 

his  comedies  hardly  come  up  to  the  second-rate 
His  dramas.  . 

works  of  French  writers.  They  are  utterly  de¬ 
ficient  in  life  and  in  hold  upon  reality.  Their  author  has  never 
realised  in  his  own  inner  experience  the  characters  he  seeks  to 
pourtray.  The  contrast  which  he  draws  in  his  play  entitled 

.  ‘  Hermann,’  between  Germany  as  the  home  of  virtue, 
‘  Hermann.’  J  .  . 

and  Rome  as  the  home  of  vice,  is  frigid  in  the 

extreme,  as  is  also  his  division  of  the  characters  into  good  and 

bad,  patriotic  and  unpatriotic. 

Elias  Schlegel’s  first  dramas  were  published  under  Gottsched’s 
patronage.  A  few  years  after  their  appearance,  in  January,  1748, 
Caroline  Neuber,  manageress  of  a  Leipzig  theatre,  Gottsched's 
former  ally,  but  now  his  enemy,  produced  on  her  stage  a  small 
comedy,  entitled  £  Der  Junge  Gelehrte :  ’  it  was  the 
work  of  a  student,  called  Lessing,  who  was  then  in 
his  third  term  at  Leipzig.  The  piece  received  the 
applause  which  it  merited,  but  its  author  was  destined 
to  surpass  by  far  all  the  hopes  which  this  youthful 
effort  excited.  He  soon  left  Leipzig,  and  never  returned  thither, 
except  for  passing  visits. 

Leipzig  still  remained  for  a  long  time  a  favourable  soil  for 
the  development  of  dramatic  talent.  In  Leipzig  a  certain  Herr 
von  Cronegk,  an  enthusiastic  disciple  of  Gellert’s,  wrote  tragedies, 

Christian  inculcating  the  lesson  of  self-sacrifice,  while  another 
Felix  young  nobleman,  von  Brawe,  came  at  the  same  time 

Weisse,  under  the  influence  both  of  Gellert  and  of  Lessing. 

1726-1804 

"  Both  unfortunately  died  young.  In  Leipzig,  too, 
Christian  Felix  Weisse  laboured  with  great  perseverance,  and  in 


Lessing’s 
‘ Junger 
Gelehrte,’ 
first  acted 
in  1748. 


Ch.  XI.] 


Leipzig . 


17 


various  ways,  for  the  benefit  of  the  stage.  He  lived  from 
1726-1804,  and  was  a  revenue-officer,  like  Rabener.  He  was 
a  friend  of  Lessing’s,  and  received  a  powerful  impetus  from 
Lessing’s  early  writings,  but  afterwards  he  remained  far  be¬ 
hind  the  great  critic,  and  represents  the  later  Leipzig,  when  it 
had  considerably  sunk  in  literary  importance.  He  was  a  volumin¬ 
ous  writer,  but  destitute  of  taste  and  originality,  and  he  never 
succeeded  in  forming  a  characteristic  style  of  his  own.  Still  he 
enjoyed  a  kind  of  reputation  as  a  lyric  and  dramatic  poet,  a  writer 
of  children’s  books,  and  a  journalist.  From  1759  His 
he  was  editor  of  the  ‘  Bibliothek  der  schonen  Wissen-  journalism, 
schaften  und  freien  Kiinste,’  and  of  its  successor,  the  ‘Neue  Biblio- 
theke,’  two  very  highly  esteemed  German  periodicals.  From  1775 
to  1782  he  published  his  ‘Kinderfreund,’  a  weekly  paper  for  children, 
more  didactic  than  imaginative,  but  outwardly  more  successful  than 
any  other  of  the  current  publications  for  the  young.  His  dramatic 
activity  belongs  to  an  earlier  period  of  his  life.  In  tragedy  he  had 
passed  through  various  fashions,  while  in  comedy  he  had  never  got 
beyond  the  tastes  of  about  the  year  1740.  He  had  His 
achieved  his  best  in  operetta;  Weisse  was  the  author  dramas 
of  the  text  of  the  operetta,  ‘  The  Devil  is  loose,’  which  and 
caused  Gottsched  so  much  grief  (see  vol.  ii.  p.  7).  operettas. 

The  operetta  (Singspief)  came  over  to  Germany  together  with 
Shakspeare.  In  1 741,  Herr  von  Borck,  Prussian  Am-  Tlie 
bassador  in  London,  afterwards  a  Minister  and  one  Operetta  in 
of  the  curators .  of  the  Berlin  Academy,  translated  Germany.  . 
Shakspeare’s  ‘Julius  Caesar,’  and  in  1743,  the  English  operetta 
‘  The  Devil  to  Pay,’  by  Coffey.  The  latter  was  first  performed  in 
Germany  with  the  English  music,  under  the  title  ‘  Der  Teufel  ist 
los;’  then,  in  1752,  it  was  produced  in  Weisse’s  version,  with  partly 
new  music  by  Staudfuss;  and  finally,  in  1766,  it  was  altered,  im¬ 
proved  and  set  to  new  music  by  Johann  Adam  Hiller.  For  about 
ten  years  after  this,  the  Operetta  dominated  the  German  stage, 
and  the  most  celebrated  German  operettas  of  this  operettas 
period,  such  as  ‘  Lottchen  am  Hofe,’  ‘  Die  Liebe  auf  by  Weisse 
dem  Lande,’  ‘Die  Jagd,’  and  ‘Der  Dorfbalbier,’  were  and  Hlller* 
the  joint  work  of  Weisse  and  Hiller.  Once  again  Leipzig  asserted 

VOL.  II.  C 


i8 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


her  position  as  a  centre  of  dramatic  activity  in  Germany.  Many 
young  Leipzig  poets  followed  Weisse’s  example,  and  others  in  other 
places  vied  in  copying  him.  Directors  were  everywhere  eager  to 
get  these  light  pieces,  and  the  public  were  not  tired  of  paying  for 
them.  Weisse  mostly  turned  French  operettas  into  German,  freely 
altering  them  to  suit  a  German  public,  and  rendering  them,  on  the 
whole,  somewhat  coarser.  From  the  French  he  borrowed  his  chief 
theme,  namely,  rural  innocence  and  simplicity  putting  to  shame 
the  corruption  of  the  upper  classes.  But  the  best  intentions  and 
the  best  models  were  of  no  good  if  the  music  was  a  failure ;  the 
chief  thing  in  the  operetta  was  the  blending  of  both  arts.  Weisse 
was  not  worth  much  as  a  poet,  nor  Hiller  as  a  musician,  but  the 
two  together  mark  an  important  advance  in  poetry  and  music. 

The  German  opera  had  perished,  and  German  popular  song 
had  taken  refuge  with  the  lowest  classes  of  the  people;  the 
Italian  opera  and  the  Italian  aria  reigned  supreme.  With 
Hagedorn’s  light  poetry,  however,  and  the  numerous  imitations 
which  it  called  forth,  the  German  song  in  stanzas  rose  again  into 
importance  as  a  form  of  music,  and  the  old  connection  between 
poetry  and  song  asserted  itself  once  more.  But  it  was  Hiller  and 
Weisse  who  really  founded  popular  song  anew  in  Germany ; 
they  started  those  ‘  songs  in  the  popular  tone,’  a  few  of  which 
became  real  ‘  people’s  songs.’  Weisse’s  operettas  were 
Weisse  and  Prose  comedies  with  songs  inserted  in  them,  and  these 
songs  soon  gained  a  wide-spread  popularity.  Weisse 
was  able  to  hit  on  the  simple  and  natural  style  suitable 
for  ballads  and  slight  poems  of  sentiment  and  reflec¬ 
tion,  and  these,  when  set  to  flowing  melodies,  found 
ready  acceptance  in  all  classes  of  society.  The  cheerful  style  of 
poetry,  started  by  Hagedorn,  achieved  its  greatest  triumphs  in  these 
simple  popular  songs  of  Weisse’s.  The  popular  tendency,  which 
Opitz  had  adopted  from  the  old  social  songs,  and  which,  since  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  had  gained  so  much  ground 
among  the  scholar-poets,  now,  thanks  to  Weisse  and  the  composers 
who  aided  him,  found  its  way  into  secular  lyric  song,  and  recom- 
mended  itself  to  the  people  in  poetry  of  deeper  import  and  greater 
artistic  value.  The  Leipzig  drama,  which  had  begun  with  classical 


Hiller  of 
German 
popular 
song. 


Ch.  XI.] 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 


19 


Advance  of 
Lessing 
upon 
Christian 
Weise’s 
School. 


tragedies  in  Alexandrine  metre,  thus  ended  by  assuming  an  entirely 
popular  form ;  and  long  after  the  operetta  had  lost  the  great  in¬ 
fluence  which  it  possessed  about  1770,  Weisse’s  harmless  songs,  often 
taken  from  his  operettas,  continued  to  be  sung  in  wide  circles. 

Gellert’s  fables,  comedies,  and  pastoral  plays,  Rabener’s  satires, 
Zacharia's  mock-heroic  poems,  and  Weisse’s  operettas 
all  belong  to  the  same  family,  which  we  may  consider 
to  have  been  founded  in  the  seventeenth  century  by 
Christian  Weise,  Rector  of  the  Gymnasium  at  Zittau. 

All  these  Saxon  poets  have  a  leaning  towards  satire, 
and  excel  most  in  innocent  and  somewhat  tame 
humour.  Middle-class  life  with  its  humorous  figures  on  the  one 
hand,  and  ideal  shepherds  or  ideal  rustics  on  the  other,  form  the 
staple  of  their  poetry.  They  treat  their  subjects  with  an  easy 
diffuseness,  and  in  a  thoroughly  natural  and  commonplace  manner. 
Goethe  speaks  of  the  great  water-floods  which  had  gathered  round 
the  German  Parnassus,  and  in  the  history  of  German  literature 
Christian  Weise  and  his  school  are  remembered  under  the  name  of 
‘  Water-poets.’  In  spite  of  a  certain  want  of  historical  fairness  about 
it,  this  nickname,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  very  appropriate  to  the 
general  state  of  literature  at  the  time  of  Lessing’s  appearance.  Les¬ 
sing  was  almost  the  only  writer  who  emerged  from  the  flood,  and 
set  up  in  himself  a  new  ideal  for  his  fellow-countrymen  to  pursue. 
Like  Pufendorf  and  Thomasius  he  left  his  native  Saxon  land,  and 
found  in  Prussia  a  more  favourable  sphere  for  his  efforts,  a  more 
promising  basis  to  build  upon.  Even  there  he  quickly  superseded 
his  teachers,  and  found  that  in  the  literary  traditions  there  prevalent 
there  was  much  to  fight  against  and  overthrow,  many  inveterate 
and  time-honoured  prejudices  to  root  up,  in  order  to  pave  the  way 
for  the  final  triumph  of  a  self-dependent  German  literature. 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 

We  have  already  noticed  the  opposed  characteristics  of  Haller’s 
and  Hagedorn’s  poetry  (see  vol.  i.  pp.  376  seq.).  There  schools  of 
was  no  personal  opposition  between  them,  and  Haller  and 
their  differences  did  not  exclude  mutual  appreciation.  Hagedorn. 
Haller  himself  has  drawn  a  just  comparison  between  himself  and 


20 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


Hagedorn,  and  Hagedorn  was  undoubtedly  influenced  by  Hallers 
poetry.  In  the  same  way  an  author  might  be,  as  a  rule,  subject  to 
Gottsched’s  or  Hagedorn’s  influence,  without  being  therefore  neces¬ 
sarily  blind  to  Haller’s  merits.  The  Saxon,  Kastner,  who  had  been 
educated  under  Gottsched’s  influence,  tried  his  skill  in  didactic  poetry 
after  Haller’s  style,  and  bore  eloquent  witness  to  Haller’s  greatness. 
This  Kastner  was  a  Professor  in  Leipzig,  and  afterwards  in  Gottin¬ 
gen.  a  mathematician  and  an  astronomer,  known  to  German  litera¬ 
ture  chiefly  as  a  writer  of  epigrams.  Gellert  too  used  frequently  to 
adorn  his  moral  lectures  with  quotations  from  Haller,  and  even 
Frau  Gottsched  cited  him  in  private  letters  as  her  favourite  poet. 

Nevertheless,  Haller  and  Hagedorn  did  represent  two  important 
and  naturally  opposed  tendencies  in  poetry  and  philosophy,  views 
which,  not  only  in  the  time  of  these  writers,  but  subsequently, 
separated  whole  groups  of  German  poets.  Hamburg  and  Switzer¬ 
land  were  the  centres  of  two  different  circles  of  culture,  which  were 
gradually  extended,  now  meeting,  now  intersecting,  now  hostile  to 
each  other,  now  mingling  together,  till  at  last  they  were  both 
obliterated  by  new  disturbing  forces. 

Hagedorn’s  school  of  poetry  had  spread  to  Leipzig,  and  it  was  he 
Hagedorn’s  wh°mouIded  the  literature  of  Lower  and  Upper  Saxony, 
or  the  Haller’s  literary  canons  on  the  other  hand  were  adopted 
Leipzig  py  tpe  Zurich  scholars,  who  developed  them  theoreti- 
school.  cally ,  and  through  their  Prussian  colleagues  trans¬ 

planted  them  to  Prussia,  to  Halle,  and  to  Berlin,  while  in  the  South 
Haller’s,  they  held  sway  over  the  whole  Allemannic  district,  that 
is  to  say,  over  Switzerland,  Alsace,  Swabia,  and  the 
Upper  Rhine. 

The  Allemannic  Upper  Rhine,  the  cradle  of  the 
Hohenstaufen,  had  in  the  twelfth  century  led  German 
progress,  while  the  Saxons  had  remained  conserva¬ 
tive.  Now,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  we  find  the 
Saxons  inclined  to  progress,  and  the  people  of  the  Al¬ 
lemannic  districts  conservative.  At  that  earlier  period 
the  centre  of  German  intellectual  life  lay  in  the 
Switzerland.  South-West ;  now  it  had  been  transferred  to  the  North. 
But  when  those  Southern  provinces,  with  their  traditions  of  an- 


or  the 
Swiss  and 
Berlin 
school. 

Character¬ 
istics 
of  the 
literature 
of  South 
Germany 
and 


Ch.  XI.] 


Zurich  and  Berlin . 


21 


cient  culture,  began  once  more  to  take  an  active  interest  in 
literature,  they  presented,  in  contrast  with  the  international  polish 
of  the  North,  a  stronger  originality,  a  greater  power  of  language 
and  a  surer  instinct  for  developing  the  distinctively  Germanic  ten¬ 
dencies  of  the  modern  spirit. 

The  literature  of  Hamburg  and  Leipzig  was  based  on  a  mingling 
of  English,  French,  and  popular  elements;  it  was 
thoroughly  modern,  progressive  and  open  to  the  latest  between 
influences.  The  Swiss,  too,  were  thoroughly  imbued  the  Leipzig 
with  French  culture,  and  their  upper  classes  were  at  and  the 
one  time  more  at  home  in  French  than  in  literary  High  spools 
German  ;  but  when  they  threw  off  the  fetters  of 
French  influence,  and  in  their  search  for  freedom  turned  their 
glance  on  England,  their  attention  first  fell,  as  though  by  elective 
affinity,  on  Shakspeare  and  Milton,  who  embodied  in  a  supreme 
degree  Germanic  power  and  art. 

Gottsched  had  a  thorough  acquaintance  with  the  older  German 
literature,  but  his  chief  interest  was  the  modern  drama  in  the 
French  style.  The  South-Germans  and  Swiss  concerned  themselves 
little  about  an  artistic  form  of  drama ;  but  in  Strassburg  Schilter, 
Scherz,  and  Oberlin  rendered  great  services  to  the  study  of  the  old 
German  literature  and  language,  while,  thanks  to  Swiss  scholars,  the 
Minnesang,  the  Nibelungenlied,  and  the  chivalrous  epics  were 
recommended  anew  to  the  attention  of  the  public. 

In  Hamburg  and  Leipzig  the  religious  life  and  the  aesthetic  were 
carefully  separated.  Gellert  purged  his  comedies  of 
all  allusion  to  divine  things,  and  biblical  phrases,  such  Llberal 
as  the  young  Goethe  brought  with  him  from  Frankfort,  Leipzig,  and 
were  tabooed  in  polite  conversation.  But  with  the  Puritanism 
Leipzig  poets,  as  with  Hagedorn,  a  vein  of  blithe  love-  of  i^^Zer" 
poetry  and  drinking-songs  ran  peacefully  side  by  side 
with  religious  hymns  and  prayers  in  verse.  A  cheerful  view  of  the 
world  was  quite  compatible  with  sincere  religion,  if  each  was  strictly 
confined  to  its  own  sphere.  No  doubt  Gellert  did  give  offence  to 
some  pious  souls  by  his  comedy,  ‘  Die  Betschwester’  (The  female 
devotee),  but  on  the  whole,  religion  and  the  Church  had  now  lost 
their  undivided  sway  over  men’s  minds.  In  the  Allemannic 


22 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


provinces,  on  the  contrary,  this  dominion  was  as  powerful  as  in  the 
time  of  the  Reformation.  The  University  of  Strassburg  was  a 
stronghold  of  Prussian  orthodoxy ;  in  Wiirtemberg,  pietism  had 
struck  deep  root ;  the  magistrates  of  Swiss  towns  exercised  a  rigid 
censorship  in  religious  matters,  and  imposed,  whenever  they  could, 
the  yoke  of  theology  upon  science.  No  doubt,  superstition  was  often 
mistaken  for  faith,  and  honoured  as  such ;  still,  great  stress  was  laid 
on  upright  living,  austere  morals,  and  Puritanic  bearing.  Wieland 
declared  that  the  idea  of  a  ball  was  enough  to  alarm  all  the  patriots 
of  Zurich,  and  to  call  forth,  even  from  the  mouths  of  babes  and 
sucklings,  prophecies  of  the  destruction  of  such  a  second  Nineveh. 
This  spirit  of  seriousness  and  often  of  gloom  in  matters  of 
Bodmer  reHgi°n  and  morality  pervades  Haller’s  poetry,  and 
and  offers  a  striking  contrast  to  the  cheerfulness  of  the  Leip- 
Breitinger  zig  school.  The  same  spirit  animated  the  literary  cham- 
of  Zurich..  pjons  Qf  Zurich,  Bodmer,  and  Breitinger,  and  led  them 
to  consider  the  religious  epic  as  the  highest  possible  form  of  poetry. 

Bodmer  and  Breitinger  were  much  of  the  same  age  as  Gottsched; 
Bodmer  was  born  in  1698,  Breitinger  in  1701.  The  former  was  a 
busy,  ambitious,  and  contentious  literary  propagandist ;  the  latter 
was  a  modest,  thorough,  and  original  thinker.  The  former  was  a 
historian,  a  translator,  a  poet  of  little  talent,  but  a  very  voluminous 
writer,  inclined  to  satire,  and  continually  finding  fault  with  other 
writers ;  the  latter  was  a  theologian  and  a  philologist,  a  scholar  of 
great  learning,  who  exercised  important  local  influence.  These  two 
writers  were  accustomed  to  have  their  work  and  interests  in 
common,  and  combined  to  publish  a  weekly  paper ;  they  also  worked 
together  at  the  development  of  a  scientific  theory  of  art.  They  both 
defended  the  merits  of  Haller  and  Milton,  and  fought  against 
Gottsched’s  dictatorship  in  literary  taste ;  and,  like  Haller,  they 
both  advocated  comparative  freedom  in  religion,  in  opposition  to 
the  narrow  ecclesiasticism  of  the  Swiss.  In  the  same 
year  in  which  Gottsched’s  ‘  Cato  ’  and  Haller’s  poems 
were  published,  in  1732,  there  appeared  a  German 
prose  version  by  Bodmer  of  Milton’s  ‘  Paradise  Lost.’ 
In  the  preface  the  translator  refers  to  Addison,  to  whom 
was  due  the  credit  of  having  revived  the  appreciation  of  Milton  in 


Bodmer 
translates 
Milton’s 
*  Paradise 
Lost,’  1732. 


Ch.  XI.] 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 


23 


the  eighteenth  century.  He  also  speaks  with  reverence  of  Shak- 
speare,  calling  him  the  English  Sophocles,  who  introduced  the 
metre  of  Milton,  namely,  blank  verse,  into  England,  and  was 
Milton’s  model  in  point  of  language.  Bodmer  had  from  the  first 
the  greatest  distaste  for  rhyme,  which  he  considered  as  a  remnant 
of  ‘  the  barbarous  poetry  of  our  forefathers.’  In  this  point,  as  in 
all  others,  he  thinks  Milton’s  poem  a  masterpiece  of  poetic  genius, 
the  leading  work  of  modern  times,  as  the  Bible  was  the  leading 
work  of  ancient  times.  All  his  criticisms  and  aesthetic  writings,  as 
also  those  of  his  colleague,  Breitinger,  are  inspired  by  a  study  of 
Milton.  The  most  important  of  these  aesthetic  papers 

Bodmer 

appeared  in  1740:  Bodmer’s  Treatise  on  the  Marvel-  and 
lous  in  Poetry,  and  Breitinger’s  Treatise  on  Similes,  Breitinger’s 
and  Critical  Art  of  Poetry.  Two  editions  of  Gott-  critlcal 

works. 

sched’s  ‘  Kritische  Dichtkunst  ’  had  been  published  by 
that  time,  in  1730  and  1737,  and  in  this  work  Gottsched  often 
referred  with  approval  to  Bodmer’s  labours.  Nor,  indeed,  were  the 
stand-points  of  the  two  writers  so  essentially  different  as  one 
might  suppose.  Neither  attached  much  value  to  rhyme,  and  both 
attached  a  very  great  deal  to  imaginative  power  in  points  of 
poetry.  But  Gottsched  studied  to  attain  great  clear-  agreement 
ness,  and  also,  as  far  as  his  means  would  allow  him,  and 
a  certain  elegance  in  writing ;  he  made  poetry  an  art  between  tho 
to  be  acquired  by  systematic  instruction,  and  appealed  Leipzig  and 
to  the  rules  of  the  Greeks  as  authoritative  canons  in  Zurich 
matters  of  taste.  The  Zurich  writers,  on  the  con-  scllools- 
trary,  were  more  clumsy  in  form,  but  showed  greater  depth  of 
thought ;  their  theory  was  less  systematic,  and  their  aim  was  not 
to  make  a  receipt-book  for  the  various  classes  of  poetry,  but  to 
discover  the  fountain-heads  of  poetic  beauty.  They  did  not 
succeed  in  their  object,  and  their  thoughts  may  be  found  also  in 
Gottsched’s  writings,  only  more  incidentally  introduced  and  not  so 
thoroughly  worked  out.  Both  parties  were  agreed  in  this :  that 
poetry  was  an  ‘imitation,’  or,  as  we  should  rather  say,  ‘representa¬ 
tion,’  of  nature ;  that  what  was  new  and  above  the  ordinary  was 
alone  beautiful  and  worthy  of  representation,  and  that  the  highest 
function  of  poetry  was  to  depict  the  marvellous.  In  depicting 


24 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


Feud 
between 
Gottsched 
and  the 
Zurich 
writers. 


the  marvellous,  however,  the  poet  must  not  transcend  the  bounds 
of  probability,  and  accordingly  we  find  the  adherents  of  the  two 
rival  schools  divided  upon  the  question  of  how  far  the  marvellous 
may  be  allowed  to  be  probable,  and  therefore  permissible  in 
poetry;  whether,  for  instance,  Homer’s  walking  tripods  and 
Milton’s  devils  were  admissible  or  not.  Gottsched  was  inclined  to 
narrow  the  scope  of  the  imagination ;  he  brought  up  again  the 
threadbare  objections  to  Homer ;  he  impugned,  with  Boileau  and 
Voltaire,  the  aesthetic  propriety  of  the  devil,  and  protested  in  the 
name  of  enlightenment  against  the  supernatural  creations  of 
Milton.  On  such  points  the  Zurich  school  sharply 
set  him  to  rights,  and  hence  the  feud  between  them. 
The  quarrel  turned  chiefly  on  the  merits  of  Homer 
and  Milton,  though  many  other  questions  were  in¬ 
volved  in  it;  and  since  in  this  matter  the  Swiss 
scholars  represented  the  more  universal  taste,  since 
they  defended  the  cause  of  beauty  against  narrow  dogmatism  and 
pedantry,  the  victory  remained  theirs. 

They  found  their  best  allies  in  Halle  and  Berlin,  and  in 
Klopstock  Prussia  furnished  them  with  the  German 
Milton  whose  advent  they  so  ardently  desired.  While 
the  spirit  of  Enlightenment  was  reigning  supreme, 
there  arose  a  pure  poetic  soul,  moulded  by  the  senti¬ 
ments  of  pietism,  who  carried  away  with  him  the 
noblest  of  the  nation,  and  roused  the  highest  religious  and  poetic 
enthusiasm  for  that  very  Messiah  whom  Frederick  the  Great  had 
termed  only  a  Jewish  carpenter’s  son.  Frederick  the  Great  granted 
liberty  of  conscience  and  freedom  of  the  press  within  certain  limits. 
In  his  reign,  church  influence  lost  its  power,  and  philosophy  was 
left  comparatively  free  to  carry  out  its  speculations  to  their  logical 
conclusion.  The  king  was  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  the  scien¬ 
tific  and  religious  movements  of  the  age.  Wolff,  the  leader  of 
German  rationalism,  had  the  greatest  influence  on  his  mental 
development.  The  disciples  of  the  Wolffian  philosophy  had  already 
in  the  last  years  of  Frederick  William  I  begun  to  gain  new  ground 
in  Prussia.  The  Provost  Reinbeck  in  Berlin  was  a  Wolffian. 
Halle  counted  among  its  teachers  the  two  brothers  Baumgarten ; 


Halle  and 
Berlin 
under 
Frederick 
the  Great. 


Ch.  XI.] 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 


25 


Revival  of 
Wolffian 
influence. 
The 

brothers 

Baumgarten. 


Liberal 
tendencies 
of  thought 
in 

Frederick’s 

reign. 


of  these  the  elder,  Siegmund,  was  a  liberal  theologian,  who  had 
started  with  Wolffian  views,  but  was  now  in  complete 
sympathy  with  English  science,  while  the  younger, 

Alexander,  later  on  Professor  at  Frankfort-on-the- 
Oder,  first  developed  more  fully  the  theory  of  sensu¬ 
ous  perception,  and  of  beauty  as  perfect  sensuous  per¬ 
ception,  within  the  system  of  the  Wolffian  philosophy, 
and  gave  to  this  theory  the  name  of  j. Esthetic .  Under  Frederick  the 
Great  the  philosopher  Wolff  himself  was  recalled  to  his  old  chair, 
from  which  he  had  been  so  shamefully  banished.  Wolff  left  Marburg 
and  returned  to  Halle,  and  his  philosophy  now  promised  to  domi¬ 
nate  the  Universities  even  more  than  before  ;  but  it  had 
to  divide  its  influence  with  other  forces.  Among  the 
spirits  to  whom  Frederick  rendered  enthusiastic  homage 
were  Locke,  whose  views  Leibniz  had  attacked; 

Newton,  Leibniz’s  rival;  the  English  free-thinkers  and 
deists,  who  left  of  Christianity  hardly  anything  but  bare 
generalities;  the  moral  philosopher  Shaftesbury,  who,  as  a  disciple 
of  the  Greeks,  taught  the  identity  of  the  good  and  the  beautiful,  of 
virtue  and  happiness;  the  sceptic  Bayle,  who,  in  his  celebrated 
Dictionnaire,  led  the  revolt  of  reason  against  revealed  faith;  and, 
above  all,  the  arch-sceptic,  Voltaire,  who  carried  on  the  work  of 
Bayle,  with  redoubled  force,  with  inimitable  freshness  and  precision 
of  language,  with  all  the  weapons  of  relentless  mockery,  and  all  the 
cheerful  assurance  of  an  imperturbable  conviction — Voltaire,  who 
popularised  the  ideas  of  Newton,  Locke,  and  Shaftesbury,  who 
taught  that  God  is  only  known  through  Nature,  and  who  founded 
morality  on  belief  in  God,  at  the  same  time  that  he  assailed  all 
positive  religion.  It  was  these  spirits  who  threw  the  Prussian 
Wolff,  Frederick’s  early  teacher,  into  the  shade,  and  who  for  a  long 
time  exercised  a  potent  influence  on  the  best  minds  of  the  nation. 
Berlin  clergymen  of  high  position,  such  as  Sack  and  Spalding, 
sought  to  modernise  Christianity,  to  explain  away  the  dogmas, 
to  remove,  as  far  as  possible,  all  that  could  give  i^e 

offence  to  reason,  and  to  lay  chief  stress  on  virtuous  Berlin 

conduct.  These  liberal  tendencies  were  focussed  in  Academy- 
the  Berlin  Academy,  which  had  been  re-organized  by  Frederick, 


2  6 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


and  which  gathered  together  distinguished  French  and  German 
scholars  and  men  of  the  world.  This  Academy  counted,  among 
its  members  natural  historians  like  Maupertuis,  mathematicians 
like  Euler  and  Lagrange,  statisticians  like  Siissmilch,  philosophers 
like  Merian,  Sulzer,  Wegelin,  Lambert,  Premontval.  But  the  liberal 
tendencies  which  it  represented  were  not  pushed  so  far  as  to 
become  subversive  of  religion;  for,  in  truth,  mere  scoffing  has 
always  been  alien  to  the  German  intellect,  and  has  never  been 
more  than  a  passing  fashion,  even  the  bitterest  enemies  of  faith 
assailing  it  seriously  and  with  reverence. 

Though  many  Germans  were  members  of  the  Berlin  Academy, 
yet  it  contributed  nothing  directly  to  German  literature.  Its  trans¬ 
actions  appeared  in  French,  the  language  which  the  king  wrote  in, 
and  which  was  still  for  the  German  nobility  and  for  the  German 
courts  the  language  of  the  highest  culture.  ‘From  my  youth  up,  I 
have  not  read  a  German  book/  said  Frederick  to  Gottsched,  ‘  and 
je  parle  comme  un  cocher ;  but  now  I  am  an  old  fellow  of  forty-six, 
Frederick  an(l  have  n0  longer  time  for  such  things.’  Frederick 
the  Great  must  be  reckoned  among  the  most  original  and  bril- 
as  a  writer*  Hant  writers  of  the  Germany  of  his  day.  His  poems 
and  letters  are  a  living  picture  of  a  remarkable  individuality  ; 

in  his  ‘  Anti-Machiavelli  ’  he  set  up  a  new  ideal  of 
His  ‘  Anti-  .  . 

Machiavelli  *  a  prince,  full  of  moral  elevation ;  his  historical  works 

and  take  a  high  rank  in  the  historical  writings  of  all 
historical  nati0ns  in  all  ages.  Seldom  has  such  a  compre¬ 
hensive  knowledge  of  facts  in  all  departments  of 
politics  and  government  been  united  with  such  unflinching  love 
of  truth,  with  such  philosophic  grasp,  and  with  a  style  equally 
fascinating,  whether  he  is  unfolding  the  condition  of  affairs, 
appraising  men’s  characters,  or  relating  measures  taken  in  peace  or 
war.  No  king  ever  judged  his  ancestors  so  impartially;  no  states¬ 
man  ever  revealed  his  motives  of  action  so  openly,  or  acknowledged 
his  faults  so  freely.  As  a  poet,  he  most  resembles 
Horace,  and  among  the  Germans,  Hagedorn  might 
be  compared  with  him;  but  the  king  is  more  profound  in  his  re¬ 
flections  than  Hagedorn,  as  we  should  expect  of  one  who  had 
wrestled  seriously  with  the  great  problems  of  existence,  and  had  led 


His  poetry. 


Ch.  XI.] 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 


27 


a  life  full  of  responsibilities,  successes,  and  dangers.  When  he  is 
encompassed  with  perils,  as  at  the  beginning  of  the  Seven  Years’ 
War,  he  imagines  himself  succumbing  to  misfortune,  and  utters  the 
gloomiest  forebodings.  His  poems  and  letters  bear  witness  that 
he  felt  and  underwent  much  that  no  other  man  of  that  His 
age  did.  He  liked  calling  himself  a  disciple  of  Epi-  character, 
curus,  but  in  reality,  it  was  the  Stoic  view  of  life  which  moulded  his 
character.  ‘  The  shield  of  Zeno/  he  would  say,  ‘  is  for  misfortunes; 
the  wreaths  from  the  garden  of  Epicurus  are  for  happiness.’  It  was 
from  the  doctrines  of  the  Stoa  that  he  derived  his  high  sense  of 
duty  and  his  firm  resolution  not  to  survive  the  misery  of  his  Father- 
land.  It  was  Marcus  Aurelius,  the  Stoic  Emperor  of  Rome,  whom 
he  revered  and  made  his  example,  and,  like  him,  he  was  pene¬ 
trated  by  the  enthusiasm  of  humanity.  The  elevated  sentiments  of 
a  genial  ruler,  of  a  faithful  friend,  of  a  distinguished  man  who 
devoted  his  best  powers  to  the  common  weal,  the  anger  and  scorn 
of  the  satirist  who  looked  down  with  contempt  from  his  own 
pinnacle  of  wisdom  and  lofty  resolution  on  the  weaker  creatures 
below  him,  who  attacked  stupidity  and  egoism,  and  was  least  of  all 
indulgent  to  his  princely  colleagues — all  these  found  expression 
in  Frederick’s  writings,  and  caused  the  nation  which  produced 
him  to  be  held  in  honour  throughout  the  whole  civilised  world. 
The  Germans  had  a  classic  in  their  great  King,  but  unfortunately,  a 
classic  in  the  French  language.  He  did  not  address 
himself  to  his  people,  but  to  the  nobility  and  the  courts  1118  writinga 
of  Europe ;  he  strove  to  gain  the  approval  of  French  French 
writers,  and  especially  of  that  Volta:re,  whom  he 
wished  to  retain  at  his  Court,  and  who  really  did  remain  for  a 
time,  till  his  vices  made  it  impossible  to  keep  him  there  any 
longer.  But  though  Frederick’s  writings  cannot  be  Literary 
reckoned  as  belonging  to  German  literature,  except  influence 
through  translations,  yet  the  spirit  which  they  breathed  of  Frederick 
had  a  favourable  effect  on  German  literature.  As 
Frederick  introduced  greater  latitude  in  religious  matters,  so  in  the 
poetry  of  his  reign  the  secular  spirit  became  more  and  more  pre¬ 
dominant  ;  cheerfulness,  unquestioning  enjoyment  of  life,  worship 
of  friendship,  and  the  Horatian  delight  in  rustic  life  became  more 


28 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


The 

Pietistie 
school. 
Pyra  and 
Lange. 


and  more  strongly  marked  features  in  the  Prussian  poetry  of  this 
period.  The  pride  of  belonging  to  such  a  State  and  such  an  army 
also  found  poetic  expression,  and  the  great  warlike  achievements 
of  the  king  soon  furnished  poetry  with  a  most  worthy  theme. 

Two  groups  of  poets  which  sprang  up  among  the  students  of 
Schools  of  Halle  show  us  most  clearly  the  change  in  the  spirit  of 
poetry  the  times.  Both  were  opposed  to  Gottsched  and  on 
in  Halle,  g^e  Qf  the  tw0  Zurich  friends ;  but  while  the  elder 

group,  formed  about  1735,  and  consisting  mainly  of  Jacob  Immanuel 
Pyra  and  Samuel  Gotthold  Lange,  was  still  subject  to  the  influence 
of  Pietism,  the  younger  poets,  Gleim,  Uz,  and  Goiz,  who  joined 
together  in  Halle  about  1740,  clearly  evidence  the  liberal  tendencies 
of  a  new  period. 

Pyra,  who  died  young,  was  a  worshipper  of  Milton,  and  planned 
a  Biblical  epic  and  Biblical  tragedies;  he  also  trans¬ 
lated  the  first  book  of  the  JEneid,  wished  to  retain  the 
ancient  chorus  in  the  drama,  and  was  a  strenuous 
advocate  of  rhymeless  verse.  Lange,  whose  father 
was  a  Halle  Professor,  and  the  chief  opponent  of 
Wolff,  was  a  lyric  poet,  and  chose  Horace  as  his  model;  still  his 
poems  breathe  religious  fervour,  and  were  meant  to  imitate  the 
style  of  the  Psalms.  Pyra  and  Lange  were  the  first  representatives 
of  that  school  of  poetry  in  which  Klopstock  gained  such  renown  ; 
they  v/ished  to  give  a  classical  setting  to  Biblical  subjects. 

Gleim  and  his  friends  also  adopted  a  classical  form,  but  for  the 
most  part  only  the  easy,  four-footed  trochaic  verse  of 
Anacreontic  Anacreon ;  and  in  this  metre  they,  like  their  Greek 
school,  prototype,  wrote  songs  of  love  and  wine.  The  reli- 
Gleim,  Uz,  gious  seriousness  disappeared  in  their  verse,  and  the 
spirit  of  Epicurus  triumphed.  Whereas  Pyra  and 
Lange  approach  in  the  tone  of  their  poetry  to  Haller,  these  fol¬ 
lowers  of  Anacreon  must  be  classed  with  Hagedorn  and  the  most 
cheerful  of  the  Leipzig  poets.  Their  poetry  was  not  burdened  with 
many  thoughts  ;  love,  wine,  and  roses  are  their  only  themes,  and 
rather  narrow  ones ;  still  their  increasing  reiteration  led  the  imagina¬ 
tion  of  these  poets  to  be  fertile  in  small  details,  and  what  had 
originally  been  simple  outpourings  of  student  merriment  became 


Ch.  XI.] 


Zurich  and  Berlin . 


29 


most  elegant  poetical  creations,  full  of  a  tender  regard  for  the  taste 

of  the  ladies,  and  emulating  the  most  graceful  productions  of  the 

Alexandrian  age.  The  members  of  this  brotherhood  of  Anacreontic 

poets  in  Halle  were  in  later  life  scattered  somewhat  far  apart  from 

each  other.  Gleim  became  a  canon  in  Halberstadt,  and  for  many 

years  devoted  his  energies  to  helping  on  young  poets  ;  Uz>s 

Uz  attained  to  the  rank  of  privy  councillor  in  the  ling,’  1742 ; 

principality  of  Ansbach,  and  Gotz  ended  his  days  as  Gleim  s 

a  ‘  Superintendent  ’  in  the  Palatinate.  Uz’s  ‘  Spring  ’  SCherzhaften 

appeared  in  1742;  Gleim’s  ‘Essays  in  Humorous  Liedern,’ 

Poetry'  in  1744,  and  the  translation  of  Anacreon  by  1744. 

TT  J  .  Translation 

Uz  and  Gotz  in  1746.  These  works  first  brought  this  cf  Anacreon 

group  of  poets  before  the  general  public.  Gleim  was  by  Uz  and 
then  in  Berlin  and  Potsdam,  and  was  rejoicing  to  see  G6tz>  174:6. 
that  the  Prussian  capital  was  gradually  becoming  a  rendezvous  for 
German  poets  and  authors.  Pyra  came  there  as  a  schoolmaster;  one 
of  the  King’s  officers,  Christian  Ewald  Kleist,  was  Poets  in 
destined  to  be  the  classic  poet  of  spring ;  Karl  Wilhelm  Berlin. 
Ramler,  a  teacher  at  the  Cadet-School,  evinced  a  rare  sense  of  out¬ 
ward  form  in  poetry;  Professor  Sulzer,  a  true  apostle  of  Bodmer, 
defended  the  aesthetic  views  of  the  Zurich  scholars ;  Swiss  youths 
like  Solomon  Gessner  and  Kaspar  Hirzel  the  physician  stayed  for 
a  time  in  the  Prussian  capital,  and  the  Court  preacher,  Sack,  took 
all  aspiiing  poets  under  his  wing. 

Serious  endeavours  were  made  to  interest  the  king  in  German 
literature.  Canitz,  it  is  true,  had  pleased  his  taste,  and  „  _  .  _ , 

he  had  called  him  the  German  Pope ;  it  seemed  as  contempt 
though  it  might  be  possible  to  convince  him  that  im-  for  German 
portant  advances  had  been  made  since  Canitz,  and 
that  the  literary  glory,  which  he  too  desired  for  his  country,  was 
really  beginning.  Sulzer  lost  no  opportunity  in  this  respect,  and 
sent  conscientious  reports  on  the  result  of  his  efforts  to  Zurich.  But 
in  1747  he  could  not  say  more  than  that  at  least  the  ladies  at  court 
were  beginning  to  read  German  works.  It  was  in  vain  that  Pastor 
Lange  sang  the  battles  of  the  second  Silesian  war,  and  laid  himself 
out  to  gain  applause  at  court ;  it  was  in  vain  that  the  king’s  atten¬ 
tion  was  called  to  Haller’s  poems ;  he  refused  to  read  them,  though 


3° 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


he  thought  very  highly  of  Haller  as  a  scholar,  and  repeatedly  tried 
to  win  him,  first  for  Berlin  and  then  for  Halle.  It  was  useless 
even  for  Sulzer  to  pay  homage  to  the  omnipotent  French,  in  order 
through  them  to  influence  the  king.  The  Swiss  longed  to  bring 
under  Frederick’s  notice  the  gifted  young  poet  Klopstock,  author 
of  the  ‘  Messias.’  the  creator  of  Biblical  epic  poetry,  who  was  a 
true  disciple  of  their  own,  and  at  the  same  time  a  subject  of  the 
great  king.  But  it  was  folly  to  turn  to  Maupertuis  and  Voltaire 
in  hopes  of  achieving  this  object.  A  French  translation  of  the 
‘  Messias  ’  only  brought  Sulzer  into  thorough  contempt  with  Mau¬ 
pertuis,  and  Voltaire  roundly  declared  that  a  new  ‘  Messias  ’  was 
quite  unnecessary,  since  no  one  even  read  the  old  one. 

Friedrich  Gotj^ieb  Klopstock  was  twenty-four  years  old,  when  in 
1 7|8  he  published  the  three  first  cantos  of  the  ‘Messias’ 
in  the  fourth  volume  of  the  ‘Bremer  Beitrage.’  It  was  not 
till  1773  that  he  brought  the  great  work  to  an  end  with 
the  twentieth  canto.  Klopstock  was  born  in  1724,  and 
died  in,i8o3  ;  though  he  thus  lived  nearly  eighty  years, 
yet  by  his  twenty-fourth  year  he  had  reached,  if  not 
the  height  of  his  fame,  yet  the  height  of  his  poetic 
achievement.  Subsequently  he  wrote  many  odes  and 
religious  poems,  Biblical  and  national  tragedies,  pro¬ 
pounded  an  extraordinary  system  of  poetics,  and  absorbed  himself 
in  metrical,  grammatical,  and  orthographical  speculations,  but  in 
all  these  later  efforts  he  rarely  or  never  transcended  the  first  three 
cantos  of  his  ‘  Messias.’ 

Klopstock  came  from  Quedlinburg,  the  scene  of  Christian 
Klopstock’s  Scriver’s  (see  vol.  i.  p.  345)  last  years  of  labour,  the 
life  and  place  where  Gottfried  Arnold  (vol.  i.  p.  347)  had  com- 
character.  p]eted  his  Church  history,  and  where  Pietists  and 

Separatists  had  found  a  home.  Religious  fervour  was  traditional 
in  his  family,  as  in  his  birth-place.  His  father,  a  man  of  strong 
and  courageous  character,  finding  himself  once  in  a  company  of 
religious  scoffers,  is  said  to  have  struck  his  hand  on  his  sword,  and 
exclaimed:  ‘  Gentlemen,  if  anyone  says  anything  against  the  good 
God,  I  take  it  as  an  insult  to  myself,  and  challenge  him.’  The  son 
inherited  the  strong  self-reliant  spirit  of  his  father,  and  if  we  com- 


Klopstock, 
1724-1803. 
First  three 
cantos 
of  his 
‘  Messias  ’ 
published, 
1748. 

‘  Messias  ’ 
finished, 
1773. 


Ch.  XI.] 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 


3i 


pare  this  spirit  with  the  hesitating  and  timorous  manner  of  Gellert, 
we  see  at  once  the  difference  between  the  Prussian  and  the  Saxon 
character.  Young  Klopstock  grew  up  in  the  country,  where  he  was 
able  to  take  the  hard  bodily  exercise  which  his  athletic  nature  de¬ 
manded.  The  liberty  which  he  enjoyed  in  his  early  youth  had  great 
influence  in  forming  his  character.  He  had  no  special  inclination 
to  develop  his  mind  on  all  sides  ;  his  emotions  were  very  strong,  and 
the  most  striking  feature  in  his  life  is  the  energetic  concentration 
of  his  powers  on  one  narrow  sphere,  on  one  purpose  which  he  con¬ 
ceived  in  early  years,  and  afterwards  unwaveringly  adhered  to.  He 
remained  for  ever  young,  and  could  never  quite  get  rid  of  a  certain 
unripeness  in  his  judgments  of  the  world.  He  was  at  school  for 
six  years  at  Pforta,  one  of  the  princely  institutions  in  Saxony; 
thence  he  went  to  study  at  Jena,  and  afterwards  at  Leipzig,  but 
could  not  bring  himself  to  choose  any  special  branch  of  study. 
Neither  theology  nor  philosophy  had  sufficient  attractions  for  him ; 
he  wished  merely  to  be  a  poet,  and  Providence  happily  granted  his 
wish.  The  King  of  Denmark,  and  later  on  the  Margrave  of  Baden, 
provided  for  his  outward  needs,  so  that  poetry  gained  him  not  only  the 
glory  he  had  desired,  but  also  such  patrons  as  he  had  wished  for. 

While  he  was  still  at  school,  Breitinger’s  4  Critical  Art  of  Poetry  ’ 

formed  his  canons  of  taste,  and  he  became  a  poet  after  the  notions 

of  the  Swiss  critics.  Bodmer  had  written  a  kind  of  German  literary 

history  in  Alexandrines,  in  which  he  foretold  the  advent  of  the 

future  epic  poet  of  Germany.  Klopstock  made  up  his  mind  to 

fulfil  the  prophecy  in  himself.  When  he  left  school  in  1745,  he 

had  already  conceived  the  plan  of  the  ‘  Messias,’ 

and  in  his  farewell  speech  on  the  nature  and  office  of  ‘Messias’ 

the  epic  poet,  he  distinctly  alludes  to  the  great  work  planned  as 

which  he  contemplated.  The  most  sublime  theme,  and  early  as 

1745. 

the  dearest  to  a  religious  mind,  the  centre  of  the 
Christian  faith,  the  sufferings  and  death,  the  resurrection  and 
ascension  of  the  Saviour — this  was  to  be  the  subject  of  his  poem. 
The  epic  attempts  of  the  early  Christian  and  of  the  humanistic 
poets,  the  Messiads  of  the  ninth  century,  the  religious  plays  of 
the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  the  epic,  lyric,  and  prose 
treatises  of  the  seventeenth,  and  the  oratorios  of  the  eighteenth 


3 2  The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great.  [Ch.  xi. 

century,  had  prepared  the  way  for  him ;  it  was  the  most  popular 
subject  that  he  could  choose,  and  as  yet  no  poet  had  exhausted 
it  or  brought  it  once  and  for  all  into  definite  shape,  as  Milton  had 
the  history  of  the  Fall,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  possible  rivals  on  the 
,  ,,  same  ground.  It  was  the  vision  of  Milton  that  floated 
*  Messias,’  before  the  poet’s  eyes,  and  indeed  he  could  not  have 
suggested  had  a  better  model,  for  Milton  had  achieved  the 
by  Milton,  highest  tpat  pe  done  for  the  Biblical  tradition. 

Milton’s  ‘  Paradise  Lost  ’  stood  unrivalled  in  grandeur  of  conception 
and  effective  development  of  the  theme.  Amid  Klopstock’s  many 
debts  to  Milton,  the  following  may  be  mentioned  :  the  detailed 
description  of  hell,  the  council  of  the  devils,  the  differences  of 
opinion  amongst  them,  their  punishment  by  metamorphosis,  the 
paths  through  the  universe  along  which  devils  and  angels  wander 
and  fly,  and  the  vision  of  the  Last  Judgment  at  the  close  of  the 
poem.  But  Klopstock  did  not  profit  half  enough  by  Milton’s 
Klopstock’s  example.  While  Milton  leads  us  from  hell  into 
inferiority  paradise,  and  thus  relieves  a  gloomy  scene  by  a 
to  Milton,  bright  one,  Klopstock,  on  the  contrary,  begins  with 
the  glories  of  heaven,  and  then  keeps  us  in  his  irksome  limbo  of 
disembodied  spirits  till  we  long  for  a  change  out  of  very  weariness. 
Milton  exerts  himself  to  the  utmost  not  to  let  the  interest  flag,  and 
pays  particular  attention  to  unity  of  composition,  steady  unfold¬ 
ing  of  the  plot,  and  graphic  narration  ;  Klopstock,  on  the  other 
hand,  lets  the  thread  of  his  narrative  decidedly  drag,  and  accom¬ 
panies  each  step  of  the  gradual  denouement  with  the  sentiments 
of  all  the  spectators.  His  chief  interest  lies  in  the  spiritual  life 
of  the  Messiah,  and  in  the  sentiments  which  that  life  awakens  in 
the  souls  of  the  spectators  in  heaven,  earth,  and  hell ;  and  since 
these  sentiments  would  necessarily  range  over  a  somewhat  narrow 
scale,  Klopstock  had  to  resort  to  endless  repetition  of  the  same 
few  ideas.  The  emotional  speeches  are  drawn  out  to  a  tedious 
length,  and,  instead  of  letting  the  characters  reveal  themselves  in 
action,  the  author  naively  sets  himself  to  tell  us  about  them  in 
a  way  altogether  out  of  keeping  with  the  best  traditions  of  epic 
poetry.  He  relates  incidents  in  such  a  confused  manner  that 
we  often  do  not  know  what  has  happened.  The  constant  resort 


Ch  XI.] 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 


33 


to  supernatural  regions  causes  a  constant  change  of  scene,  and 
angels  are  constantly  appearing  to  disturb  the  natural  course  of 
events.  Such  an  incident  as  the  scourging  is  not  made  nearly  so 
impressive  as  it  might  be,  because  the  poet  himself  is  too  much 
overpowered,  and  can  only  sing  ‘  with  a  weeping  tone  ’  just  where 
he  ought  to  pourtray  with  a  firm  hand ;  in  the  critical  moment  he 
declares  that  he  is  unable  to  sing  all  the  sufferings  of  the  Eternal 
Son.  When  he  tries  to  rise  to  the  sublime,  Klopstock  Defects 
becomes  stilted  and  unnatural ;  his  poetry  is  full  of  of  ths 
the  very  faults  which  Milton  condemned,  and,  however  poem, 
much  Milton  may  have  been  his  model,  yet  his  1  Messias  ’  is  more 
closely  related  to  the  religious  oratorios  than  to  ‘  Paradise  Lost.’ 
The  life  of  Jesus  had  touched  the  hearts  and  stimulated  the  reflec¬ 
tion  of  earlier  poets  than  Klopstock,  of  Otfried  and  Father  Cochem 
for  example.  But  these  earlier  poets  took  care  in  their  works  on 
the  subject  to  keep  pure  narrative  distinct  from  such  alien  elements 
as  their  own  prayers  or  moral  teaching.  Even  in  the  Passion- 
oratorios  the  epic  element  was  duly  kept  apart  from  sentiment  and 
reflection ;  in  Klopstock,  on  the  contrary,  narrative  and  reflection 
are  hopelessly  mixed  up  together  to  the  great  prejudice  of  the 
former.  Klopstock  is  really  a  lyric  poet,  masquerading  as  a  writer 
of  epic.  It  is  a  pity  that  he  did  not  remain  a  lyric  poet,  and, 
like  Angelus  Silesius,  for  example,  confine  himself  to  a  sym¬ 
pathetic  commentary  upon  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  As  it  is,  even 
Father  Cochem  stands,  as  a  narrator,  above  Klopstock,  for  he 
has  done  what  Klopstock  neglected  ;  he  has  filled  in  the  details 
of  the  Saviour’s  life  where  the  traditional  records  leave  a  blank, 
and  has  really  tried  to  give  his  readers  a  clear  idea  of  places,  and 
a  graphic  picture  of  events.  Klopstock  ought  to  have  tried  to 
realise  the  state  of  Palestine  as  it  was  in  the  time  of  Christ;  he 
ought  at  least  to  have  read  the  descriptions  of  modern  travellers ;  he 
ought  to  have  studied  the  people  around  him  in  order  to  pick  up 
some  traits  wherewith  to  characterize  the  Jewish  populace  of  old. 
But  he  did  not  think  of  anything  of  the  kind.  He  painted  without 
making  any  preliminary  studies  either  from  life  or  from  books, 
and  evolved  everything  out  of  his  own  unassisted  consciousness. 
For  this  very  reason,  however,  his  poem  has  certain  redeeming 

VOL.  II.  D 


34 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


qualities,  for  he  invests  his  characters  with  his  own  nobility  of 
soul,  and  dignity  of  language  and  action ;  he  sends  a  ray  of 
sympathy  even  into  hell  itself,  and  thus,  like  the  sacred  poets  of 
the  twelfth  century,  divests  the  religious  sentiment  of  its  gloomy 
severity.  He  lingers  over  the  tender  and  poetic  scenes,  and  his 
work  in  many  parts  has  rather  the  tone  of  lyric  than  of  epic  poetry. 

Klopstock’s  rhymeless  religious  odes  and  also  his  rhymed  hymns 
Klopstock’s  are  sP°^t  by  the  same  excess  of  sentiment  which  mars 
hymns  and  his  ‘  Messias.’  His  hymns,  although  set  to  old  and 
religious  well-known  melodies,  were  written  in  a  style  utterly 

od.6S 

different  from  that  of  the  old  and  approved  Protestant 
hymns.  Klopstock  was  bold  enough  to  lay  his  hands  on  these,  and 
try  to  re-write  them  to  suit  his  own  one-sided  taste,  thus  setting  an 
example  which  was  generally  followed,  of  improving  these  sterling  old 
religious  songs.  This  so-called  improvement  consisted  in  banishing 
terse,  picturesque,  and  popular  phrases,  and  in  substituting  empty 
and  conventional  ones. 

Klopstock  rendered  great  services  to  the  development  of  the 

,  German  language  and  prosody.  His  own  verses 
Klopstock’s  00  v  J 

improve-  be  balanced,  polished,  and  elaborated  writh  unweary- 

ments  in  ing  care.  He  was  the  first  to  gain  a  clear  idea  of  the 

metre  and  difference  jn  accent  between  the  various  syllables  in 
poetic  style.  ' 

German  words,  on  which  difference  all  imitation  of 

classical  metres  is  based.  Following  in  the  steps  of  Haller,  he  im¬ 
mensely  enriched  the  poetic  vocabulary,  but  his  style  was  far  from 
popular.  The  hexameters  even  of  the  ‘  Messias,’  the  elegiac  metre, 
Defects  of  the  Horatian  or  original  stanzas,  and  free  rhythms 
his  style.  Gf  his  0des  repelled  a  public  accustomed  to  Gellert 
or  to  Christian  Felix  Weisse ;  moreover,  in  the  odes  as  well  as  in 
the  ‘  Messias,’  there  is  a  want  of  solid  subject-matter,  and  everything 
is  vague  and  impalpable.  Klopstock  was  seldom  able  to  discern 
the  poetry  latent  in  real  life;  he  was  under  the  necessity  of  first 
transferring  reality  to  an  unreal  region,  of  imagining  living  men  as 
dead,  and  those  before  him  as  being  far  away,  of  transforming  the 
present  into  a  visionary  future,  before  he  could  begin  poetic  creation. 
In  his  odes,  which  are  imitations  of  Horace,  he  sought  to  carry 
out  the  rules  of  the  theorists,  who  insisted  in  this  class  of  poetry 


Ch.  XI.] 


35 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 

upon  a  headlong  style,  a  wild  beauty,  intense  feeling,  striking 
metaphors,  and  startling  turns  and  digressions.  But  this  artificial 
passion  and  irregularity  led  to  all  kinds  of  obscurity  and  confusion, 
and  it  was  quite  impossible  that  such  a  style  should  attract  the 
simple  reader,  who  did  not  bring  to  it  a  mind  imbued  with  classical 
culture.  Complete  control  could  not  be  at  once  acquired  over  the 
unwonted  form  and  the  novel  diction,  so  that  many  stiff  and  awk¬ 
ward  phrases  naturally  crept  in,  and  few  of  Klopstock’s  odes  can 
be  enjoyed  throughout  as  pure,  finished  works  of  art.  Yet  they 
are  full  of  beautiful  details,  many  of  which  were  now  introduced 
into  German  poetry  for  the  first  time,  and  moreover  they  con¬ 
summate  that  revival  of  the  serious  form  of  lyric  poetry  which  had 
been  begun  by  Haller  and  carried  on  by  Pyra  and  Lange,  in 
marked  contrast  to  the  light  and  popular  lyrics  produced  by  Hage- 
dorn  and  the  Anacreontic  School  (see  p.  28). 

Klopstock’s  poetry  gave  the  first  impulse  to  that  remarkable  out¬ 
break  of  sentimentality  to  which  modern  German  _ 

J  Emotional 

literature  owes  all  its  fire  and  inspiration.  Klop-  character 
stock’s  particular  art  lies  in  his  power  of  calling  forth  of  his 
emotion.  He  seeks  to  express  the  unutterable  feelings  poeiry‘ 
which  shake  the  very  foundations  of  our  being,  and  he  succeeds  to 
a  certain  extent.  He  not  unfrequently  introduces  physical  desig¬ 
nations  of  emotion  such  as  £  shaking/  ‘  trembling ;  ’  he  says  that  his 
heart  beats  loud,  and  that  a  soft  shudder  runs  through  his  whole 
frame.  Spiritual  conceptions  are  brought  together  in  wonderfully 
affecting  combinations,  and  a  descriptive  rhythm  heightens  the 
effect  of  the  whole,  which  is  almost  like  that  produced  by  music. 
Still  more  affecting  are  often  the  very  words  which  Klopstock 
uses ;  he  knew  that  the  mere  word  by  the  very  charm  of  its  sound 
will  often  throw  all  arts  of  paraphrase  into  the  shade.  Yet  he  is 
far  from  despising  paraphrase,  and  is  very  happy  in  his  choice  of 
descriptive  epithets.  The  opening  lines  of  some  of  his  odes  move 
us  deeply,  though  the  sequel  is  often  disappointing.  He  can  with 
a  few  strokes  draw  the  most  impressive  natural  scenes.  In  these 
descriptions  of  nature  some  particular  scene  floats  before  his 
eyes,  and  keeps  him  from  wandering  into  vague  and  indefinite 
regions.  Among  his  love-odes  too,  those  are  most  successful  in 


d  2 


36 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great . 


[Ch.  XI. 


which  he  not  only  wishes  to  express  feeling,  but  also  to  describe 
a  situation,  an  action.  Two  or  three  of  them  are  addressed  to 
his  lady  sleeping,  a  very  favourite  motive  in  the  poetry  of  that 
time.  He  is  fond  of  introducing  the  conventional  roses  of  lyric 
poetry;  at  one  time  he  throws  dewy  rose-buds  into  his  lady’s  curls 
to  awaken  her,  at  another  he  binds  her  brow  with  a  wreath  of  roses; 
in  the  latter  case  he  writes  in  a  simple  style  and  produces  a  very 
charming  poem. 

We  cannot  help  regretting  that  Klopstock  so  seldom  touched  the 
Want  of  earth  in  Ids  poetry,  and  thus  threw  away  his  best  chances 
reality  in  of  success.  There  was  one  form  of  writing  by  which 
his  poetry,  jje  mjght  have  appealed  to  wider  and  more  popular 
circles,  namely,  patriotic  songs.  In  his  youth  he  had  been  animated 
by  a  strong  patriotism  which,  like  his  religious  spirit,  he  derived 
from  his  father,  who  was  enthusiastically  devoted  to  Frederick  the 
Great.  The  patriotism  of  young  Klopstock  found  expression  in  an 
Klopstock’s  excellent  ‘War  Song’  written  in  1749,  in  honour  of 
‘Kriegslied,’  Frederick  the  Great.  This  song  is  full  of  real  life 
1749-  and  fire,  and  is  written  in  the  bold  metre  of  the  ballad 
of  Chevy  Chase,  which  Klopstock  knew  through  Addison’s  two 
essays  in  the  ‘Spectator.’  It  speaks  of  the  Prussian  king  in  terms  of 
enthusiastic  admiration.  But  this  enthusiasm  was  not  to  last.  The 
His  want  ar^our  and  ambition  of  the  poet  in  Klopstock  sup- 
of  sympathy  pressed  the  patriotism  of  the  citizen.  Because  Frederick 
with  his  disappointed  the  hopes  which  were  set  on  him,  because 
own  age.  ^  failed  to  patronise  German  poets,  and  favoured 
French  free-thinkers  instead,  Klopstock  felt  himself  called  upon 
His  to  avenge  German  poetry  of  her  king,  and  religion  of 
devotion  her  scorner.  He  accordingly  set  himself  to  draw  his 
G°  °^an  patriotic  inspiration  not  from  the  living  present,  but 
history  and  from  the  dead  past.  The  ‘War-Song’  was  dedicated 
mythology,  afresh,  this  time  to  Henry  the  Fowler,  and  Arminius, 
chief  of  the  Cheruski,  was  celebrated  in  odes  and  dramas.  By 
such  methods  the  German  Muse  was  to  be  schooled  to  indepen¬ 
dence.  Nor  was  this  all.  Imitation  of  the  ancient  writers  was  to 
cease ;  the  Northern  gods,  whom  no  one  knew,  whose  names 
Klopstock  himself  was  only  just  learning  to  pronounce,  and 


Ch.  XI.] 


Ztirich  and  Berlin. 


37 


which  he  had  to  explain  to  his  reader  in  notes,  were  to  take 
the  place  of  the  well-known  figures  of  ancient  mythology.  The 
battle-cry  of  the  old  Teutons,  the  barditus  mentioned  by  Tacitus, 
was  supposed  by  Klopstock  to  refer  to  battle-songs  sung  by  bards ; 
he  knew  of  such  bards  from  Celtic  poetry,  and  supposed  that 
they  were  also  to  be  found  among  the  early  Germans.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  he  gave  to  his  dramas,  founded  on  early  German  history, 
the  sounding  title  of  ‘Bardiete.’  The  Ode  ‘Her-  Klopstock’s 
mann  und  Thusnelda,’  written  in  1752,  is  one  of  ‘Bardiete.’ 
his  happiest  inspirations,  showing,  as  it  does,  powerful  situ¬ 
ations  and  action  revealed  in  the  speeches ;  the  whole  is  a  kind 
of  ballad  in  dialogue-form,  full  of  incident  and  character-drawing. 
But  his  three  Bardiete ,  ‘Hermann’s  Schlacht,’  ‘Hermann  und  die 
Prinzen/  and  ‘Hermann’s  Tod/  completed  in  1769,  1784,  and 
1787  respectively,  were  quite  useless  as  plays  for  acting,  and  the 
first  of  them  alone  contained  a  few  really  poetic  incidents. 

Though  many  of  Klopstock’s  literary  experiments  may  seem  to 
us  very  strange,  yet  they  all  give  expression  to  some  KlopstockJS 
wide-spread  tendency  of  the  age,  and  in  most  of  them  influence 
he  found  imitators.  In  his  worship  of  Hermann  he  on  other 
was  the  connecting  link  between  the  friends  of  his 
youth  at  Leipzig,  and  the  poets  of  the  war  of  Liberation.  His 
classical  Odes  found  imitators  in  Giseke,  Ramler,  Gotz,  and  many 
of  his  younger  contemporaries.  Goethe  learnt  from  him  the  use 
of  free  unrhymed  rhythms.  His  biblical  epic  found  successors 
chiefly  in  Zurich,  where  the  idea  had  really  originated. 

The  Swiss  critics  and  their  partisans  greeted  Klopstock  with 
enthusiasm,  and  quickly  made  him  famous.  Bodmer  Klopstock 
had  some  time  before  published  the  outline  for  an  and  Bodmer, 
epic  on  ‘Noah,’  and  he  now  set  to  work  to  develop  it;  he  also 
turned  several  other  Bible  stories  in  rapid  succession  into  bad 
hexameters.  In  the  summer  of  1750,  Klopstock,  at  Bodmer’s  in¬ 
vitation,  came  to  Zurich.  A  short  time  before  he  had  made  the 
acquaintance  of  the  Anacreontic  poet  Gleim,  who  had  rejoiced  to 
find  in  him  not  a  Homer  with  a  prophet’s  mien,  but  a  man  ‘like 
one  of  us/  Bodmer,  on  the  contrary,  expected  at  least  a  divine 
youth,  who  would  think  of  nothing  but  his  great  work,  and  who 


3« 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


in  intercourse  with  worthy  men  would  strive  to  become  more  and 
more  worthy  of  his  task.  But  Klopstock  kept  with  the  young 
people,  went  much  into  society,  drank  and  smoked,  kissed  girls 
and  women  whom  he  saw  for  the  first  time,  worked  very  little  at 
the  ‘  Messias,’  and  took  no  interest  in  ‘  Noah.’  Klopstock  was 
just  fresh  from  the  gallantry  of  Leipzig  and  the  pleasures  of 
student-life ;  he  was  no  stranger  to  the  Anacreontic  mood ;  he 
sang  the  praises  of  wine,  and  declared  in  one  of  his  Odes  that  a 
single  glance,  a  sigh,  an  inspiring  kiss  was  worth  more  than  a 
hundred  cantos  with  all  their  long  immortality.  Such  a  frank 
determination  to  enjoy  life  was  all  very  well  in  North  Germany 
and  among  poets  of  the  Hagedorn  school,  but  it  shocked  the 
Swiss  puritans,  even  when  exhibited  by  the  poet  of  the  ‘  Messias.’ 
Bodmer  was  soon  awakened  from  his  illusion,  and  a  rupture  be¬ 
tween  him  and  Klopstock  was  only  just  avoided.  Klopstock  went 
to  Kopenhagen,  and  other  poets  took  up  their  abode  by  the  Lake 

of  Zurich,  about  which  he  had  written  so  manv  beautiful  lines. 

'  * 

In  the  summer  of  1752  Ewald  von  Kleist,  the  poet  of  spring, 

Other  poets  came  to  Zurich  as  Prussian  recruiting-officer ;  Solo- 

at  Zurich.  m0n  Gessner  published  there  his  first  literary  efforts : 
Kleist,  1  :  ’ 

Gessner,  and  Bodmer  soon  thought  he  had  found  in  young 

Wieland.  Wieland  all  that  he  had  missed  in  Klopstock. 

Kleist’s  ‘  Spring  ’  had  appeared  in  1749,  a  year  after  the  first 
Kleist’s  cantos  of  the  ‘Messias;’  it  describes,  through  the 
‘  Fruhling/  medium  of  a  country  walk,  field,  wood,  lake,  island, 
i749.  cultivated  shores,  rain,  and  sun,  and  the  labour  and 
homes  of  the  peasants.  It  extends  over  four  hundred  and  sixty 
hexameters,  each  hexameter  having  an  extra  syllable  at  the  begin¬ 
ning.  The  description  is  rather  too  detailed ;  still  it  is  not  dull, 
but  written  throughout  in  an  exalted  style,  and  combined  with  much 
praise  of  the  Deity.  Kleist’s  ‘  Friihling  ’  was  one  of  the  poems  which 
this  period  of  the  dawn  of  modern  literary  glory  was  most  proud  of. 
It  was  a  new  variation  of  that  old  yearning  of  the  townsman  for 
simpler  conditions  of  life,  to  which  Horace,  and,  following  in  his 
steps,  Fischart  and  Opitz  had  given  expression.  It  was  a  new  essay 
in  the  way  of  a  poetic  description  of  Nature,  less  in  the  diffuse  style 
of  Brockes  than  in  the  more  concise  manner  of  Haller.  It  was  cer- 


Ch.  XT.] 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 


39 


Influence 
of  Swiss 
scenery  on 
Kleist  and 
others. 


tainly  influenced  by  Thomson’s  celebrated  poem  on  the  *  Seasons,’ 
which  was  then  being  translated  by  Brockes,  and  which  still  lives 
on  in  Germany  in  the  selection  of  it  set  to  music  by  Haydn. 

Kleist's  descriptive  poetry  was  entirely  after  the  heart  of  the 
Zurich  critics,  and  the  idyllic  elements  of  his  poem 
could  nowhere  reckon  on  a  warmer  welcome  than  in 
Switzerland.  Haller  had  found  pure,  uncorrupted 
nature  in  the  shepherds  of  the  Alps.  Bodmer,  charmed 
by  the  idyllic  beauty  of  Milton’s  ‘  Paradise,’  had  sought 
the  same  in  the  patriarchs  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  some  of  the 
characters  in  his  biblical  epics  were  esteemed  very  highly  by  his 
friends  for  their  unaffected  simplicity.  Solomon  Gessner,  of  Zurich, 
a  bookseller,  poet,  and  landscape-painter,  acquired  the  art  of  poetic 
landscape-painting  in  part  from  his  friend  Kleist,  and  gained  Euro¬ 
pean  renown  as  an  elegant  imitator  of  Theocritus  by  G-essner’s 
his  prose-idylls,  published  in  1756.  Gessner’s  shep-  idylls,  1750. 
herds  are  honest  rustics  with  Greek  names,  such  as  appeared  in  the 
pastoral-plays  performed  at  Leipzig ;  in  small  carefully  finished  pic¬ 
tures  he  described  a  golden  age  of  generosity,  virtue,  and  innocence, 
and  his  primitive  sons  of  Nature  are  remarkable  for  their  tender 
sentiment  and  elegance  of  speech.  It  is  true  that  we  find  in  these 
idylls  few  touches  of  true  unadulterated  Swiss  scenery ;  still  we 
may  suppose  that  love  of  it,  and  feeling  for  its  striking  contrasts, 
helped  to  mould  the  taste  of  both  Haller  and  Gessner.  For  was 
not  Rousseau  also  a  Swiss,  and  did  not  he  also  call  upon  men  to 
abandon  the  fictions  of  civilisation,  of  arts  and  sciences,  and  to  re¬ 
turn  to  Nature  ?  In  his  ‘  Devin  de  Village,’  a  dramatised  village- 
story,  Rousseau  gave  an  idyllic  turn  to  the  French  operetta,  and  in 
his  ‘  Nouvelle  Heloise  ’  he  described  the  grandeur  of  the  Alps  in 
impressive  language,  that  reminds  us  strongly  of  Haller. 

In  Franc1,  as  in  Germany,  the  Swiss  nature  showed  itself  to 
be  emotional  and  enthusiastic,  and  was  in  conse-  Opposition 

quence  opposed  to  the  cold  logic  of  modern  ration-  between  the 

rr ,  1  •  ,  ,,  ,  ...  ,  .  ,  rationalistic 

aiism.  1  he  intellectual  opposition  which  was  so  and 

marked  between  Voltaire  and  Rousseau,  was  antici-  sentimental 

pated  in  Germany,  where  it  afterwards  exercised  school. 

such  a  strong  influence.  Haller,  Bodmer,  and  Klopstock,  took  up 


4o 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 

a  hostile  attitude  towards  Voltaire,  while  Gottsched  translated  him, 
flattered  him,  and  sought  to  make  use  of  him  for  his  own  purposes. 
And  though  it  did  not  at  first  follow  that  the  enemies  of  Voltaire 
were  necessarily  friends  of  Rousseau,  though  an  orthodox  Bernese 
aristocrat  like  Haller  could  only  see  in  the  Theist  democrat  of 
Geneva  a  madman  or  a  criminal,  yet  the  sentimental  school  both 
in  Switzerland  and  in  Germany  soon  attracted  to  itself  younger 
men,  who  did  not  recoil  from  Rousseau’s  levelling  conclusions. 

Pietism  and  rationalism,  enthusiasm  and  frivolity,  the  straitlaced 
and  the  pleasure-seeking  life,  Haller  and  Hagedorn,  Klopstock  and 
Voltaire,  strove  together  for  mastery  over  the  soul  of  a  young 
Christoph  Swabian  in  this  period — Christoph  Martin  Wieland. 
Martin  Wieland  learnt  to  write  in  a  brilliant  and  imaginative 

Wieland,  way  in  the  school  of  dreamy  enthusiasm,  but  he 

1733-1813  J 

finally  threw  himself  into  the  arms  of  enlightenment 

and  became  one  of  the  greatest  German  epic  poets.  He  was 
nine  years  younger  than  Klopstock,  and  was  the  son  of  a  clergyman 
in  the  Swabian  village  of  Oberholzheim,  four  hours  from  the  town 
of  Biberach.  His  father,  a  Pietist  of  the  Halle  school,  was  his 
instructor  from  his  third  year,  and  sent  him  in  1747  to  Kloster- 
bergen,  a  college  near  Magdeburg,  in  which  rigid  Pietism  was  the 
rule.  There  his  emotional  nature  was  subjected  to  the  prescribed 
course  of  contemplation,  repentance,  and  ecstacy,  not,  however, 
Pietistic  and  w^^out  experiencing  an  early  and  vehement  attack  of 
sentimental  doubt.  As  early  as  his  fifteenth  year  he  was  tossed 
phase  in  about  between  the  opposing  views  of  the  age.  In  his 
his  youth.  £eventeenth  year  his  newly-awakened  religious  en¬ 
thusiasm  found  an  earthly  object  to  concentrate  itself  upon,  in 
Sophie  Gutermann,  a  young  relative,  whom  he  translated  to  the 
region  of  the  Klopstockian  angels,  and  glorified  in  prose  and  verse. 
While  he  was  still  at  the  University,  his  marvellous  ease  in  writing 
began  to  show  itself,  as  well  as  his  extraordinary  capacity  for 
absorbing  knowledge  and  his  facility  in  reproducing  it  under  a  new 
form.  Wieland  was  both  a  didactic  and  an  epic  poet ;  precept  and 
narrative,  philosophizing  and  story-telling,  were  what  his  literary 
talent  was  inclined  to  throughout  his  life.  Like  Haller  or  Hage¬ 
dorn,  he  sang  of  a  perfect  world;  he  joined  with  Kleist  and 


Ch.  XI.] 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 


4i 


Thomson  in  the  praise  of  Spring,  and  Hermann  and  Thusnelda 
were  destined  to  be  his  heroes  as  well  as  Klopstock’s.  A  hymn  of 
praise  to  Love,  moralizing  letters,  and  an  ‘Anti-Ovid’  were  com¬ 
mitted  in  rapid  succession  to  paper  by  young  Wieland,  His  early 
and  he  also  produced  short  tales  in  blank  verse,  such  writings, 
as  Bodmer  copied  from  Thomson.  The  subjects  for  some  of  these 
tales  were  borrowed  from  the  English  weekly  papers,  such  as  the 
‘  Spectator’  and  the  ‘Guardian;’  their  style  reminds  us  of  Gellert, 
while  their  great  sentimentality,  their  psychological  analysis  and 
sympathetic  description  betray  the  influence  of  Thomson  and 
Klopstock.  Wieland  delighted  in  the  idyllic  form  of  poetry,  and 
considered  innocence  the  subject  most  worthy  of  poetic  treatment. 
The  lofty  idealism  of  his  poems  reminds  us  of  Klopstock,  but 
Wieland’s  writing  is  free  from  the  harshness,  obscurities,  and 
exaggerations  which  disfigure  Klopstock’s  poetry. 

In  August,  1751,  Wieland  sent  his  heroic  poem  ‘Hermann’ 
anonymously  to  Bodmer,  to  receive  his  judgment  on  wieland  at 
it ;  this  gave  rise  to  a  correspondence  which  led  to  an  Zurich, 
invitation  to  Zurich.  There  he  at  first  lived  with  Bodmer,  and  wrote 
at  the  same  table  with  him ;  he  satisfied  Bodmer’s  passion  for  biblical 
epics  by  the  production  of  a  poem  on  the  trial  of  Abraham ;  he 
openly  attacked  the  Anacreontic  poets,  denouncing  them  as  cor- 
ruptors  of  morals ;  he  found  great  delight  in  holding  intercourse 
with  Breitinger  and  other  old  gentlemen,  he  drank  water  and  did 
not  smoke  like  Klopstock,  and,  in  short,  lived  for  a  time  thoroughly 
after  Bodmer’s  own  heart.  Then  he  accepted  an  appointment  as 
private  tutor,  and,  being  removed  from  the  direct  influence  of  his 
Mentor,  he  became  gradually  more  and  more  estranged  from  him,  so 
that  the  honest  Bodmer  had  at  last  to  lament  a  new  and  much  more 
bitter  disillusioning  than  he  had  suffered  a  short  time  before  in  the 
case  of  Klopstock.  Nor  was  our  young  poet  without  his  sorrows; 
his  Sophie,  who  had  inspired  his  earliest  poetic  efforts,  whom  he 
had  sung  of  as  Doris  and  pourtrayed  as  Thusnelda,  jilted  him  and 
gave  her  hand  to  a  certain  Herr  von  La  Roche.  But  Wieland’s  im¬ 
pressionable  mind  soon  recovered  its  equanimity ;  he  declared  that 
his  love  for  her  had  always  been  a  Platonic  love,  that  her  marriage 
need  not  make  the  slightest  difference  in  his  affection,  and  thus  the 


42 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


thread  of  old  acquaintance  was  not  snapt.  But  his  poetry  now 
assumed  more  and  more  the  tone  of  extravagant  Christian  enthusi- 

.  asm.  His  letters  from  the  dead  to  friends  left  behind, 
Religious  ’ 

enthusiasm  the  idea  of  which  he  borrowed  from  an  English  writer, 
in  his  show  clearly  to  what  an  extent  Heaven  must  draw 
writings.  Up0n  the  delights  of  earth  in  order  to  become 
beautiful  and  attractive.  Simple,  spiritual  religion  is  as  much 
lacking  here  as  in  Klopstock’s  religious  poems ;  but  Wielana 
could  describe  in  a  more  graphic  and  picturesque  manner  than 
Klopstock,  and  in  his  wealth  and  colour  of  diction  he  is  hardly 
surpassed  by  any  other  German  poet.  We  seem  to  hear  the  voice 
of  Goethe  in  some  of  his  verses — for  instance,  in  the  following: 
‘  Thou  weavest  deftly  a  halo  of  truth  around  thy  cherished 
error/  Wieland  could  not  dispense  with  the  society  of  women, 
and  even  in  puritanical  Zurich  there  were  a  few  fair  souls  in 
whom  his  religious  enthusiasm  awakened  an  answering  chord, 
and  whom  he  transfigured  in  several  of  his  religious  writings. 
But  by  the  year  1754  he  had  begun  to  run  his  thoughts  and 
Influence  of  ^anc'es  into  Greek  moulds.  Shaftesbury  directed  him 
Greek  on  to  Plato  and  Xenophon ;  this  gave  rise  to  a  Socratic 
Wieland’s  dialogue,  and  he  also  commenced  discourses  on 
writings.  beauty  and  }ove<  Greek  influence  combined  with  the 

great  historical  events  of  the  age  and  with  the  entanglements  of  his 
susceptible  heart  to  bring  him  back  to  earth.  One  of  his  Platonic 
friendships  carried  him  too  far ;  the  tender-hearted  enthusiast  sud¬ 
denly  felt  himself  a  human  lover,  and  had  to  be  checked  and 
rebuffed.  ‘Araspes  and  Panthea,’  an  episode  taken  from  Xenophon’s 
Hig  Cyrus-Romance,  is  the  poetic  memorial  of  this  affair, 
‘Arapses  and  the  idea  which  here  appears  for  the  first  time 
tmd  runs  through  the  whole  of  Wieland’s  subsequent  lite- 
Panthea.  rary  acqvity  :  the  transition  from  spiritual  enthusiasm 

to  earthly  passion.  Xenophon’s  hero  was  also  to  become  his  own. 
When  at  the  beginning  of  the  Seven  Years’  War  all  eyes  were 
directed  towards  the  King  of  Prussia,  Wieland  began  an  epic 
,  entitled  ‘Cyrus;’  Cyrus  was  only  Frederick  the  Great 
in  Persian  disguise,  and  the  epic  was  undertaken  in 
the  hopes  that  it  would  bring  him  some  appointment  in  Prussia, 


His  ‘  Cyrus.’ 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 


43 


either  a  place  in  the  Academy  or  the  Directorship  of  some  school. 
Bodmer  corresponded  with  Sulzer  on  the  subject,  but  Wieland’s 
hope  in  this  direction  was  destined  to  be  disappointed,  like  many 
others. 

In  June,  1759,  Wieland  went  to  Berne,  where  he  was  fortunate 
enough  to  fall  into  varied  and  stimulating  society,  and  wieland 
where  he  gained  the  undeserved  love  of  a  noble  and  goes  to 
highly  intellectual  girl,  Julia  Bondeli  by  name.  At  Berne>  1759* 
the  end  of  May,  1760,  he  returned  to  his  native  Biberach,  where  he 
was  given  a  small  legal  appointment,  and  hastened  to  break  his 
faith  with  the  excellent  Bernese  girl,  and  to  fall  into  the  meshes  of 
a  common  coquette.  He  compromised  his  honour  in  one  more 
love-affair  after  that,  and  then  brought  the  history  of  his  loves  to 
a  close  by  marrying  the  daughter  of  an  Augsburg  tradesman,  a 
worthy  but  insignificant  girl.  The  weak,  fantastic,  susceptible,  and 
fickle  youth  became  henceforth  a  model  husband  and  father. 

Meanwhile,  as  a  writer,  he  had  entirely  freed  himself  from  the  old 

fit  of  extravagant  enthusiasm,  and  passed  into  the  wieland 

opposite  extreme,  into  frivolity.  ‘Don  Sylvio  von  gives  up 

Rosalva  ’  (1764)  and  the  ‘Humorous  Tales’  (1766) 

bear  eloquent  witness  to  this  change.  The  castle  of  Sylvio  von 

Warthausen,  distant  an  hour  from  Biberach,  had  since  Rosalva,’ 

1764  • 

1761  been  the  residence  of  Count  Stadion,  an  old  man  «Komische 
of  much  culture,  and  with  a  thorough  knowledge  of  Erzah- 
the  world ;  he  was  the  patron  of  Herr  von  La  Roche  iungen/1766. 
and  his  wife,  Wieland’s  youthful  love,  who  both  lived  with  him. 
Nothing  was  more  natural  than  that  Wieland  should  have  frequent 
intercourse  with  them,  and  that  the  tone  of  the  cultivated  world, 
which,  under  French  influence,  and  especially  since  the  Regency,  had 
taken  a  perceptibly  frivolous  turn,  should  affect  him  too,  and 
according  to  his  usual  tendency  incite  him  at  once  to  literary  pro¬ 
duction.  Wieland,  who  in  his  youth  had  so  vehemently  attacked 
the  Anacreontic  school,  now  became  himself  an  Epicurean ;  he,  who 
had  been  a  disciple  of  Bodmer,  began  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of 
Voltaire  and  the  younger  Crebillon,  and  gave  himself  up  to  the 
poetry  of  humour  and  innuendo.  But  in  so  doing  he  won  over  to 
the  cause  of  national  literature  the  German  aristocracy,  who  found 


His 

translation 
of  Shak- 
speare, 
1762-1766. 


a  further  attraction  in  his  flexible,  eloquent,  and  finished  style 
of  writing,  which  had  much  to  offer  beyond  the  jests  and  mockery 
of  the  French  style.  This  transition  from  extravagant  enthusiasm 
to  nature,  also  turned  his  attention  to  Shakspeare,  the  master  of 
naturalness  and  truth  of  delineation.  Between  the 
years  1762  and  1766  he  translated  either  the  whole  or 
parts  of  twenty-two  of  the  plays.  The  golden  age  of 
Athens,  the  epoch  of  Socrates,  Pericles,  Xenophon,  and 
Plato,  became  henceforth  the  ideal  region  which  took 
the  place  in  his  imagination  of  those  paradisaic  fields  of  the  blessed, 
where  his  muse  had  wandered  in  his  earlier  years.  Now  he 
sought,  instead  of  an  imaginary  innocence,  plain,  unvarnished 
human  nature,  men  such  as  he  himself  was,  full  of  kindness,  and 
with  susceptible  hearts.  Around  these  he  wove  the  history  of  his 

Wieland’s  own  exPeiaences  *n  l°ve  and  life,  and  4  Story  of 
novels.  Agathon’  (1766-67)  is  really  the  story  of  himself.  In 

‘Agathon,’  this  book  he  conducts  us  to  Delphi,  Athens,  Smyrna, 

1766—67  1  J  * 

Syracuse,  and  Tarentum;  the  ‘  Ion’  of  Euripides  sup¬ 
plied  a  few  incidents  for  the  history  of  the  hero’s  youth ;  we  follow 
his  inward  development  from  childhood  to  mature  manhood,  and 
trace  in  his  love-experiences  and  in  his  public  career  a  gradual 
reaction  from  the  extravagant  enthusiasm  and  Quixotism  of  his 
early  youth.  While  he  was  in  Zurich  Wieland  had  been  a  rapturous 
admirer  of  Richardson’s  novels ;  he  joined  with  Gellert  and  many 
others  in  admiring  the  faultless  heroes  set  before  the  world  by  this 
novelist,  Pamela  and  Clarissa  and  Grandison,  and  he  even  took  the 
materials  for  a  drama  from  one  of  these  stories.  But  in  England 
Fielding  had  headed  a  reaction  against  heroic  untruth,  while  in 
Germany  Musaus  had  written  a  parody  on  Grandison ;  and 
Wieland  now  became  a  follower  of  Fielding  and  fell  in  with  the 
principles  of  Shaftesbury,  who  declared  perfect  characters  in  the 
epic  and  the  drama  to  be  simply  monstrous./'  Still  Wieland's  cha¬ 
racters  are  not  of  the  solid  motley  texture  that  belongs  to  real  men, 
but  are  thin  impersonations  of  the  opposed  stages  of  morality 
through  which  Wieland  had  himself  passed.  These  one-sided 
ideals  are  set  forth  by  his  heroes  in  long  dialogues,  so  that  his  novels 
became  at  the  same  time  philosophical  disquisitions.  Even  in  the 


Zurich  and  Berlin. 


Ch.  XI.] 


45 


charming  poetic  narrative  ‘  Musarion/  where  a  misanthropic  Athe¬ 
nian  philosopher  is  converted  to  pleasure  and  unre-  , 

.  ,  .  fl.f  .  ,v  ‘Musarion. 

strained  enjoyment  ol  life,  we  notice  a  didactic  arnere- 
penste ,  and  the  very  title  of  the  book  recommends  it  as  a  philosophy  of 
the  graces.  In  another  book,  half  novel,  half  history,  he  chose  the 
cynic  Diogenes  as  his  hero,  and  most  inappropriately  grafted  an 
Anacreontic  element  on  the  stern  old  philosopher.  ‘Die 
The  ‘  Abderites,’  on  the  contrary,  begun  in  1774,  -A-bderiten.’ 
must  be  reckoned  among  the  best  things  that  he  ever  wrote ;  it  is  a 
satirical  romance,  in  which  contemporary  German  events  and  in¬ 
cidents  from  Wieland’s  own  life  are  pourtrayed  and  ridiculed, 
under  a  Greek  mask.  In  the  light  and  playful  ‘Die 
‘  Graces/  in  which,  as  in  the  old  pastoral  romance  and  G-razien.’ 
in  many  modern  French  epistles,  verse  alternates  with  prose, 
Wieland  directed  his  steps  back  to  the  Arcadian  regions  which 
he  had  forsaken,  but  it  was  only  because  the  happy  mood  of  the 
idyll,  the  rosy  dream  of  innocence  and  simplicity  seemed  the 
proper  medium  in  which  to  set  delicate  mythological  beings  such 
as  the  Graces.  Wieland,  we  see,  rose  from  Greek  men  to  the 
eternally  fair  ideals  of  Greek  art,  to  the  gods  and  heroes.  And 
though  in  his  youth  he  had  made  a  miserable  failure  in  Christian 
tragedies,  such  as  ‘  Lady  Jane  Grey  *  and  ‘  Clementine  von  Poretta/ 
yet  he  now  determined  to  try  his  hand  once  more  at  dramatic 
writing.  This  time  he  resolved  to  choose  some  pre-Christian 
legend  and  to  employ  the  fashionable  form  of  the  operetta. 
Accordingly  in  1773  he  entered  the  lists  against  0perettasof 
Euripides  with  another  ‘Alcestis/  and  in  ‘The  ‘Alcestis’ 
Choice  of  Hercules  ’  gave  a  rhythmical  version  in  a  and 
few  scenes  of  Xenophon’s  well-known  story.  Though  Hercules- 
these  pieces  had  no  lasting  success,  and  though  the  former  of 
them  excited  the  angry  scorn  of  young  Goethe,  yet  they  were 
not  without  effect  on  the  further  development  of  German  poetry, 
and  on  Goethe  in  particular,  for  the  ‘  Alcestis  ’  suggested  his 
‘  Iphigenie/  while  his  ‘  Faust  ’  seems  to  echo  some  of  the  tones 
struck  in  the  ‘  Hercules.’ 

Wieland's  versatility  is  apparent  in  every  epoch  of  his  life,  till  age 
began  to  lay  its  fetters  on  him.  Parallel  with  his  Greek  current 


[Ch.  XI. 


46 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


‘Idris’ 
(1768), 
and  ‘  Der 
neue 
Amadis  ’ 
(1771). 


there  runs  a  strong  romantic  one  in  ‘Idris’  (1768),  and  ‘The  New 
Amadis’  (1771), for  which  Ariosto  and  Hamilton  sup¬ 
plied  him  with  models.  His  remarkable  epic  talent 
was  not  content  with  prose  or  with'  the  easy  versifica¬ 
tion  of  Gellert,  or  with  original  metres ;  he  wished  to 
try  his  skill  in  all  forms,  and  therefore  adopted  the 
Italian  stanza  in  order  to  add  the  charm  of  its  inter¬ 
laced  rhymes  to  his  highly  coloured  and  sensuous  style  of  description. 
And  again,  with  his  popular  philosophic  propensities  Wieland  could 
not  resist  the  temptation  of  turning  his  attention  to  political 
questions ;  already  in  ‘  Agathon  ’  he  had  introduced  his  hero  into 
the  field  of  political  activity,  and  he  himself  had  a  share  in  the 
administration  of  a  small  state,  extremely  small  it  is  true,  with  its 
little  intrigues  and  rivalries,  and  its  storms  in  a  tea-cup.  No  sooner 
had  Haller  in  his  novel  ‘  Usong  ’  made  use  of  an  oriental  garb  in 
which  to  clothe  political  thoughts,  than  Wieland 
followed  his  example  in  ‘The  Golden  Mirror’  (1772) 
(1772),  and  and  its  sequel  ‘The  Danishmend’  (1775).  In  these 
}  works  the  idea  which  had  inspired  his  ‘  Cyrus  ’  revived 
again;  as  in  the  earlier  work  Frederick  the  Great  was 
to  be  his  hero,  so  now  the  enlightened  despotism  of 
the  eighteenth  century  floated  before  his  eyes  as  the  best  possible 
constitution,  and  Frederick’s  imitator,  Joseph  II,  as  its  most  happy 
representative.  But  this  time  his  high  conception  of  the  princely 
calling  really  brought  him  into  contact  with  a  princely  house ;  after 
Wieland  having  been  made  in  1769  Professor  of  philosophy  and 
called  literature  at  Erfurt,  he  was  called  in  1772  to  Weimar 
to  Weimar.  as  Hofrath  and  tutor  to  the  young  prince  Karl  August. 
There  he  was  soon  allowed  to  devote  h:mself  again  exclusively  to 
literary  activity,  and  he  lived  in  comfortable  circumstances  till  his 
death  in  1813.  At  the  very  commencement  of  this  Weimar  period 
he  started  a  quarterly  magazine,  which  for  many 
years  secured  him  great  influence ;  this  was  the 
‘Teutsche  Merkur,’  in  which  he  used  his  powers  to 
promote  the  cause  of  enlightenment  and  pure  taste, 
and  gave  expression  to  that  moderate  optimism  which 
had  gradually  become  his  view  of  life.  If  he  did  not  always  find 


‘  Der 

Danishmend 

(1775). 


The 

‘  Teutsche 
Merkur,’ 
started  by 
Wieland. 


Cb.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


47 


favour  with  the  younger  generation,  which  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
century  began  to  strike  out  powerfully  in  all  directions,  yet  the  best 
of  these  hot-headed  youths  soon  rallied  round  him,  and  he  on  his 
part  was  always  ready  to  welcome  true  genius  with  enthusiasm. 
But  his  ripest  works  were  still  to  come  (see  p.  131);  they  were  not 
produced  until  new  impulses  had  awakened  in  France  and  Germany 
a  new  love  for  the  Middle  Ages,  so  that  Wieland  could  rely  on 
public  sympathy  and  appreciation  for  his  own  romantic  tendencies. 

Wieland  had  gradually  freed  himself  from  the  bonds  of  literary 
partisanship  which  had  trammeled  him  as  a  youth  at  Zurich.  He 
had  entirely  outgrown  the  opposition  between  Gottsched  and 
Bodmer,  between  the  Leipzig  and  the  Swiss  school,  and  though  he 
was  now  good  friends  with  the  Anacreontic  writers,  the  tender  and 
delicate  ladies’  poets,  yet,  as  an  epic  writer,  his  horizon  necessarily 
extended  further  than  this,  while,  as  an  editor,  his  interests  forbade 
his  becoming  one-sided  in  his  tendencies.  He  at-  ■wieland 
tained  somewhat  later  to  that  independent  standpoint  and 
which  Lessing  took  up  from  the  first.  Lessing  began  Lessing, 
as  an  enemy  of  Gottsched’s,  but  was  not  therefore  a  partisan  of 
Bodmer’s ;  on  the  contrary,  he  proved  himself  from  the  first  to  be 
an  independent  critic.  He  carefully  watched  Wieland's  develop¬ 
ment,  ridiculed  his  dreamy  extravagance,  refuted  his  polemics, 
annihilated  his  dramatic  efforts,  praised  his  *  Agathon,’  and  shared 
his  enthusiasm  for  the  Periclean  age ;  and  in  German  literature  he 
did  for  the  drama  what  Wieland  had  done  for  the  epic,  he  raised  it 
from  mere  good  intentions  to  real  merit. 


Lessing. 

Gotthold  Ephraim  Lessing  was  five  years  younger  than  Klop- 
stock,  and  four  years  older  than  Wieland ;  he  was  Lessing 
born  on  the  22nd  of  January,  1729,  at  Kamenz,  in  1729-1781. 
Upper-Lusatia.  He,  too,  came  of  a  clergyman’s  His  early 

life 

family,  and  was  brought  up  in  the  Lutheran  faith ; 

but  he  never  had  anything  in  common  with  pietism,  and  in  his 

poetic  language  we  miss  the  magic  solemnity,  the  sensuous  charm, 


48 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XT. 


the  imaginative  fire  which  Klopstock  and  Wieland  acquired  in  the 

school  of  emotional  religion.  Lessing  received  his  public-school 

training  at  the  princely  college  of  Meissen,  matriculated  at  Leipzig 

in  the  autumn  of  1746,  at  the  age  of  seventeen,  and  as  early  as 

1747  first  came  before  the  public  with  some  short  poems  and  a 

comedy.  In  January,  1748,  another  comedy  of  his,  the  ‘Young 

Scholar,’  was,  as  we  already  know,  brought  out  on  the 
His  Comedy  .  .  .  . 

‘Derjunge  Leipzig  stage,  where  it  met  with  great  approval. 
Gelehrte,’  Unlike  the  ‘  eternal  youth  ’  Klopstock,  Lessing  quickly 
performed  grew  t0  ripe  manhood;  while  Klopstock  hardly  de¬ 
veloped  at  all,  but  obstinately  adhered  to  his  first 
standpoint,  Lessing’s  life  was  one  of  steady  progress,  and  his 
Lessing’s  labours,  which  were  many-sided  without  being  diffuse, 
progressive-  continually  revealed  ever  fresh  capabilities  of  his  rich 
ness.  nature.  He  has  few  points  of  contact  with  the  writers 
for  the  ‘  Bremer  Beitrage,’  of  whom  Klopstock  was  one.  These 
Saxon  poets  were,  as  we  have  seen,  thoroughly  moralised  writers, 
good-natured,  self-satisfied,  and  as  correct  in  their  style  as  in  their 
religious  and  political  opinions ;  they  lived  as  peaceable  citizens, 
without  struggles,  without  conflicts,  happy  in  their  mediocrity,  and 
like  quiet  settlers  cultivated  their  small  field  with  industry  and 
understanding.  Lessing,  on  the  contrary,  was  full  of  the  spirit 
of  enterprise  and,  far  from  being  a  peaceable  nature,  was  inclined 
to  assail  mediocrity  and  give  no  quarter.  It  is,  therefore,  all  the 
more  to  his  honour  that  he  was  never  revolutionary  in  his  proceed¬ 
ings  ;  he  always  started  from  the  existing  state  of  things,  took 
account  of  present  facts,  and  with  the  genuine  zeal  of  reform 
aimed  only  at  introducing  gradual  improvements.  Neither  in 
poetry  nor  in  science  was  he  a  radical  innovator ;  he  never  lost  his 
inner  balance,  nor  that  rare  tact  for  distinguishing  the  possible  and 
the  useful,  in  which  a  fiery  poet’s  nature  is  so  often  deficient.  The 
impulse  to  go  forward,  however,  drove  him  from  place  to  place,  and 
he  was  not  comfortably  settled  till  late  in  life ;  though  adverse  cir¬ 
cumstances  may  have  had  much  to  do  with  this,  yet  it  was  mainly 
the  result  of  his  temperament.  He  did  not  like  to  bind  himself,  he 
easily  entered  into  relations  and  quickly  broke  them  off,  and  was 
fond  of  seeking  new  surroundings  and  new  interests.  .  He  passed 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


49 


through  many  varied  experiences,  many  illusions  and  disappoint¬ 
ments,  and  was  like  a  roaming  seafarer,  gathering  treasures  from  all 
countries,  but  finding  no  fixed  habitation  anywhere. 

Lessing’s  rapid  development  began  early ;  even  the  ‘  Young 
Scholar  ’  is  a  step  in  his  emancipation,  for  the  very  Lessing’s 
pedantry  which  he  ridicules  therein  was  his  own.  As  early 
a  boy  he  had  loved  books,  quickly  ransacking  their  emancipa- 
contents,  and  school-life  at  first  strengthened  his  pro¬ 
pensity  towards  unprofitable  learning.  But  nature  had  endowed  him 
with  a  cheerful  and  lively  disposition,  and  with  a  fund  of  healthy 
mother-wit,  which  made  him  turn  his  pedantic  teachers  to  ridicule, 
and  soon  revealed  to  him  his  own  pedantic  tendencies.  With 
him  too  the  spirit  of  modern  enlightenment  breathed  life  into  the 
dry  bones  of  scholarship,  while  mathematics,  natural  science  and 
Anacreontic  poetry  all  helped  to  emancipate  him.  The  great 
city,  whose  University  he  entered,  widened  his  horizon  an$  gave 
him  the  wish  to  become  above  all  a  true  man,  and  to  learn  how 
to  live  his  life  best.  He  aimed  at  attaining  bodily  and  mental 
proficiency,  followed  his  poetic  leanings,  and  sought  to  develop 
himself  into  a  German  Moliere.  He  associated  with  actors,  which 
gave  great  offence  to  his  parents,  and  finally  he  left  Leipzig  to  try 
his  fortunes  in  Berlin.  The  opposition  between  pedantry  and 
human  feeling  plays  the  same  part  in  his  character  as  the  oppo¬ 
sition  between  extravagant  sentiment  and  nature  did  in  Wieland’s ; 
but  while  Wieland  never  got  beyond  this  one  problem  of  his  life,  in 
Lessing  it  was  a  youthful  episode  and  he  soon  triumphed  over  it. 

He  went  to  Berlin  against  the  will  of  his  parents,  and  while  they 
were  fearing  the  worst  for  his  religion  and  morals,  he  Lessing 
was  earning  a  scanty  but  honourable  livelihood  by  his  goes  to 
pen,  writing  reviews,  making  translations  and  publish-  Berlin, 
ing  original  works,  poems  and  dramas.  But  the  apprehensions  of 
his  parents  were,  it  must  be  confessed,  not  without  foundation ;  his 
orthodoxy  was  put  to  the  test  and  succumbed.  In  Becomes 
November,  1748,  he  had  come  to  Berlin,  and  in  1750,  acquainted 
shortly  after  Voltaire’s  arrival,  he  made  acquaintance 
with  the  great  philosopher.  Voltaire  employed  him 
in  making  translations,  and  for  a  time  is  said  to  have  invited  him 


with 

Voltaire. 


VOL.  II. 


E 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


5° 


daily  to  dinner.  It  was,  of  course,  an  enormous  advantage  for  a 
young  beginner  like  Lessing  to  be  the  guest  of  the  greatest  writer 
in  Europe,  and  of  the  King  of  Prussia’s  friend.  It  opened  out  to 
him  prospects  of  instruction,  advancement,  and  patronage,  and  of 
course,  in  the  opinion  of  his  parents,  of  spiritual  harm.  If  Lessing 
had  summed  up  his  views  and  plans  at  that  time,  they  would 
probably  have  borne  a  great  resemblance  to  Voltaire’s.  He  wished 
to  become  a  free  author,  not  to  influence  literature  from  the 
professorial  chair,  but  to  be  independent  of  the  academic  tradition, 
and,  like  Voltaire,  to  rely  on  the  intrinsic  power  of  his  pen. 
Voltaire  had  written  some  counsels  for  a  journalist,  in  which  he 
recommended  impartiality  in  all  things ;  in  philosophy  he  advised 
respect  for  greater  thinkers,  in  history  he  called  men’s  attention 
to  the  various  grades  of  civilisation,  and  laid  special  stress  on 
the  modern  periods  ;  in  dramatic  criticism  he  required  faithful 
analysis,  moderation  in  judgment,  and  a  comparison  with  other 
extant  pieces  on  the  same  subject.  In  aesthetic  criticism  in  general 
he  insisted  on  the  method  of  comparison,  a  method  as  valuable, 
he  declared,  in  such  departments  of  knowledge  as  in  anatomy. 

,  Lessing  conducted  his  journalism  in  accordance  with 
Lessings 

method  of  ^ese  counsels ;  he  did  not  adhere  to  any  particular 

criticism  party ;  in  philosophy  he  attached  himself,  like  Voltaire, 

derived  from  t0  orreater  of  his  predecessors,  and  he  scrupulously 
Voltaire.  .  „  °  ,  f  .  .  ,  ,  / 

followed  the  inductive  and  comparative  method  in 

esthetic  criticism.  The  interest  which  he  then  took  in  history  in 
general  was  not  continued  later,  but  literary  history  proved  a  sub¬ 
ject  of  permanent  attraction  to  him.  Lessing  did  not  remain 
faithful  to  the  physical  sciences  which  Voltaire  popularised,  and 
neither  tried  his  skill  in  the  epic  nor  in  the  novel ;  but  he  shared 
Voltaire’s  pre-eminent  delight  in  the  drama,  and,  like  Voltaire,  pro¬ 
ceeded  cautiously  in  the  reform  of  the  stage.  In  their  disinclination 
to  positive  religion  and  in  their  demand  for  religious  toleration  they 
were  both  of  one  mind  ;  and  Lessing’s  clear  unadorned  prose,  which 
fits  and  follows  every  nuance  of  thought,  might  have  been  acquired 
from  Voltaire,  had  it  not  been  natural  to  himself. 

For  good  or  evil,  Lessing’s  relation  to  Voltaire  was  an  important 
element  in  his  life.  Personally  he  afterwards  broke  with  him 


Lessing . 


Ch.  XI.] 


5i 


altogether.  Lessing  received  a  copy  of  Voltaire’s  ‘  Siecle  de 
Louis  XIV’  before  publication,  and  did  not  keep  it  Lessing’s 
carefully  enough  from  strange  eyes ;  Voltaire  suspected  quarrel  with 
him  of  dishonourable  motives  in  this,  and  a  breach  Voltaire, 
ensued,  which  was  productive  of  much  harm  to  Lessing  in  later  years. 
But  even  without  this  breach,  it  was  not  in  Lessing’s  nature  to 
resign  himself  to  a  foreign  influence  ;  mere  scoffing  at  religion  exer¬ 
cised  no  power  over  his  soul,  and  the  weak  points  in  Voltaire  were 
too  apparent  to  escape  such  a  clever  observer  as  he  was.  Voltaire 
was  to  him  only  a  lever  by  which  to  raise  himself  to  independence. 
If  Voltaire  had  learnt  from  the  ancients,  Lessing  might  read  them 
also;  if  Voltaire  had  learnt  from  the  English,  Lessing  could  follow 
suit  there,  and  draw  from  the  same  source  as  Haller,  Hagedorn, 
and  Klopstock  had  done.  In  Berlin  Lessing  became  not  dependent 
but  free ;  and,  what  is  more  important,  he  brought  about  the 
literary  emancipation  of  Berlin  from  Swiss  influence.  Lessing’s 
He  struck  out  a  new  line  of  criticism,  and  gathered  influence 
round  him  young  writers  such  as  the  Jewish  merchant  in  Berlin- 
Moses  Mendelssohn,  and  the  bookseller  Nicolai,  who  were  his 
literary  disciples  and,  like  himself,  adhered  neither  to  the  Swiss 
school  nor  to  the  Gottschedians,  neither  raved  for  Klopstock  nor 
for  Schonaich,  and  always  reserved  their  own  right  of  judgment. 
When,  in  1755,  he  published  a  collected  edition  of  his  works,  he 
was  already  a  celebrated  man,  a  dreaded  critic  and  an  admired 
poet.  His  little  Anacreontic  poems  found  great  favour  as  songs, 
and  the  powerful  drinking-song  where  Death  appears  before  him 
and  he  succeeds  in  deceiving  Death,  has  lived  on  among  German 
students  to  this  day.  In  his  poetic  fables  he  imitated  the  easy, 
conversational  tone  of  Gellert.  His  epigrams  borrowed  much 
from  foreign  sources,  but  were  seldom  without  the  true  epi¬ 
grammatic  ring.  In  certain  fragments  of  didactic  poems  he  has 
the  conciseness  of  Haller  without  his  obscurity.  His  ‘  Briefe  ’ 
and  ‘  Rettungen  ’  are  works  of  a  scholar,  in  which  he  uses 
his  multifarious  knowledge  to  correct  old-established  errors,  to 
censure  contemporary  mediocrity,  and  defend  calumniated  wor¬ 
thies  of  the  past,  all  in  a  clear  and  flexible  style.  But  it  was 
above  all  as  a  dramatist  that  Lessing  took  the  first  rank  among 

E  2 


52 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great.  [ch.  xi. 


his  colleagues  even  early  in  life.  His  litile  comedies  were  more 
Lessing’s  French  than  those  of  Gellert ;  but  by  his  closer  ad- 
Dramas.  herence  to  a  foreign  technique,  he  became  a  master  of 
technique  in  general.  His  plays  are  written  with  a  sure  and  correct 
hand ;  the  purpose  in  view  is  always  attained,  and  the  plot  is 
clearly  developed  and  never  drags ;  his  scenes  are  well  contrived, 
his  jokes  are  good,  and  his  characters,  in  spite  of  a  lingering  con¬ 
ventionality,  well  drawn.  But  he  did  not  remain  content  with  light 
pieces  for  the  amusement  of  the  public ;  his  idea  was  to  use  the 
stage  as  a  moral  influence,  and  to  prove  to  his  father  that  he  was 
not  giving  up  his  life  to  empty  aims.  In  ‘Der  Freigeist’ 
Freigeist’  ^e  P^aces  a  n°ble  theologian  and  an  honourable  free- 
‘Die  thinker  side  by  side,  and  shows  how  the  latter  was 
Juden,’  and  cured  of  his  prejudice  against  the  clergy.  In ‘Die 
Schatz  ’  Juden  ’  he  attacks  the  Christian  prejudice  against  these 
unhappy  people,  who  were  just  beginning  to  breathe 
freely  under  the  blessing  of  Frederick’s  tolerance,  and  whose 
noblest  representatives  in  Berlin  Lessing  had  learnt  to  honour  and 
love.  His  extensive  historical  knowledge  of  the  drama  among  other 
nations  was  of  benefit  to  his  own  productions ;  in  ‘  Der  Schatz  * 
(The  Treasure)  we  have  a  modernised  version  of  a  comedy  of 
‘  Miss  Plautus,  and  his  endeavour  to  modernise  the  Greek 
Sara  legend  of  Medea  resulted  in  the  production  of  his 
Samson.’  tragedyr,  ‘  Miss  Sara  Samson.’  This  piece  brings 

before  us  a  fickle  lover,  who  has  become  unfaithful  to  his  first  lady, 
and  elopes  with  a  second,  but  does  not  mean  to  marry  her ;  his 
former  mistress  pursues  him,  upbraids  him,  threatens  to  kill  her 
child,  and  really  does  kill  her  rival.  These  contemptible  and 
horrible  characters  are  put  into  English  masks,  and  the  play  is 
written  after  the  model  of  English  plays  like  Lillo’s  ‘  Merchant 
of  London ;  ’  the  dialogue  is  in  prose,  full  of  gushing  sentiment 
which  often  becomes  offensive.  This  play  was  the  beginning  of 
middle-class  tragedy  in  Germany,  of  that  trage'die  bourgeoise  against 
which'  Voltaire  had  raised  a  warning  voice.  Under  Lessing’s 
influence  it  now  at  once  came  into  fashion,  supplanted  the  Alexan¬ 
drine  tragedy,  and  began  to  drive  out  every  other  kind  of  play. 
Various  causes  co-operated  to  call  this  new  style  of  drama  into  life, 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


53 


such  as  the  wish  felt  by  authors  to  be  true  to  nature,  their  con¬ 
viction  that  characters  drawn  from  modern  middle-class  or  aristo¬ 
cratic  society  would  appeal  more  strongly  to  the  hearts  of  play¬ 
goers  than  the  fates  of  ancient  kings  and  princes,  or  the  desire  to 
break  with  the  remote  idealism  of  French  classical  tragedy,  a  desire 
which  in  France  had  already  led  to  the  introduction  of  a  ‘  come die 
larmoyanlei  i.  e.  a  tragedy  with  characters  drawn  from  private  life 
and  with  a  happy  ending.  But  unfortunately  these  middle-class 
plays  often  degenerate  into  sensationalism  on  the  one  hand,  or  into 
the  depths  of  commonplace  on  the  other. 

‘  Miss  Sara  Samson  ’  closed  an  epoch  in  Lessing’s  life  and  in 

his  poetic  activity ;  while  the  plaudits  of  the  public  still  rang  in  his 

ears  he  was  already  filled  with  higher  aspirations.  In  order  to  put 

himself  en  rapport  with  a  higher  style  of  drama,  Lessing 

Lessing  returned  to  Leipzig  in  the  autumn  of  1755.  returns  to 

There  an  opportunity  offered  itself  of  making  a  tour  Leipzig, 

1755 

through  North  Germany  to  Holland  and  England  in 
company  with  a  young  man  of  property,  Winkler  by  name.  But 
this  tour  was  soon  interrupted  by  the  outbreak  of  the  Seven  Years’ 
War;  Lessing  returned  in  October,  1756,  to  Leipzig,  and  at  once 
became  a  centre  of  literary  interests  there.  His  old  friend  Christian 
Felix  Weisse  sought  to  benefit  by  his  teaching  as  before ;  the  young 
Von  Brawe  chose  him  as  his  model;  Ewald  von  Kleist,  now 
Major,  and  ordered  to  Leipzig  with  his  regiment,  became  his 
intimate  friend.  By  Lessing’s  advice  Kleist  gave  up  descriptive 
poetry  and  took  to  epic  or  dramatic  poetry,  as  containing 
more  life  and  action ;  his  tragedy  ‘  Seneca,’  idylls  like  Kleist’s 
his  excellent  ‘  Irin,’  full  of  feeling  and  rich  in  thought,  ‘Seneca, 

and  a  heroic  poem  from  the  Greek  world  entitled  *  cissides 
‘  Cissides  and  Paches,’  bear  witness  to  this  change,  and  Paches.’ 
The  war  now  fired  all  hearts  ;  men  felt  that  a  national  interest  was 
at  stake,  and  the  conflict  with  the  French  and  the  victory  of 
Rossbach  excited  an  indescribable  enthusiasm.  Poets  all  of  a 
sudden  found  great  subjects  close  at  hand,  and  no  longer  needed  to 
seek  their  heroes  in  a  remote  past ;  and  though  it  was  hard  on 
Bodmer,  Sulzer,  Lessing,  and  others,  that  the  hard-pressed  king 
should  at  this  very  time  have  given  a  man  like  Gottsched  an 


54 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


opportunity  of  publicly  glorying  in  the  praise  formerly  bestowed 

„  on  him  by  Frederick,  yet  this  did  not  hinder  them 
Effect  of  .  .  . 

the  Seven  from  doing  their  part  in  that  rise  of  German  litera- 
Yaars’  War  ture  for  which  Frederick’s  deeds  were  the  signal, 
on  literature.  Lessjng^  though  a  Saxon  by  birth,  was  in  his  heart 

on  Frederick’s  side.  Another  Saxon,  Kastner  (see  p.  20),  then 
Kastner  Professor  at  Gottingen,  glorified  the  Battle  of  Ross- 
Kleist,  and  bach  in  German  and  Latin  epigrams.  Many  were 
Bamler.  0f  opinion  that  Frederick  was  greater  than  Csesar. 
Kleist  sang  the  praises  of  his  king  and  of  the  Prussian  army, 
and  the  patriotic  death  which  he  had  desired  for  himself  fell  to 
his  lot  at  the  battle  of  Kunersdorf  (1759).  Ramler  produced 
solemn  and  artistic  odes  in  honour  of  the  glorious  war,  and 
deserved  the  name  of  the  ‘  Prussian  Horace.’  Johann  Gottlieb 
Willamow  attempted  to  glorify  in  heavy  dithyrambs  ‘  Frederick, 
Willamow  hero,  the  prince,  the  sage,’  and  aspired  to  be 
and  Anna  the  Prussian  Pindar.  A  Prussian  Sappho,  too, 
Karschin.  according  to  the  exaggerated  praises  of  that  time, 
appeared  in  the  person  of  Anna  Louisa  Karschin,  who,  owing 
to  meagre  culture  and  too  great  indulgence  on  the  part  of  her 
admirers,  never  got  beyond  mere  rhyming.  Many  other  writers 
besides  these,  cultured  and  uncultured,  a  fewr  with  a  vocation  for 
poetry,  many  with  none,  made  their  voices  loudly  heard.  Amongst 
these  Gleim  made  a  decidedly  happy  hit  in  his  ‘  Prussian  War- 
songs  by  a  Grenadier,’  which  first  appeared  in  1757  and  1758  in 
flying  sheets,  and  wrere  published  in  a  collected  form  in  1758,  with 
a  preface  by  Lessing ;  these  poems  really  mark  a  new  departure  in 
popular  lyric  verse. 

Lighter  poetry  had  never  quite  lost  touch  with  the  popular  song 
Gleim’s  fr°m  which  it  had  sprung.  In  Hagedorn  we  see  the 
‘  Grenadier  relation  clearly,  and  Gleim,  who  belongs  to  Hagedorn’s 
Songs.’  school,  had  in  his  earlier  years  written  humorous 
romances  in  ballad-form;  the  Spanish  Gongora  and  the  French 
Moncrif  were  his  models  in  these  poems,  which  he  really  wished  to 
be  disseminated  through  ballad-singers.  Klopstock,  in  his  song  on 
Frederick  the  Great,  had  struck  a  powerful  and  popular  tone,  and 
had  made  use  of  a  celebrated  English  ballad-metre.  It  was  this 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


55 


very  metre,  with  lines  only  rhyming  alternately,  that  Gleim  now 
chose  for  the  descriptions  of  battle  which  he  put  into  the  mouth 
of  a  grenadier,  and  these  War-songs  of  his  were  quite  as  spirited, 
manly,  and  rich  in  action  as  Klopstock’s  poem.  The  artificial 
obscurity  of  the  classical  ode  was  laid  aside,  and  all  digressions 
and  sudden  transitions  were  done  away  with ;  the  grenadier-poet 
renounced  all  pomp,  tinsel,  and  even  decorative  epithets,  and 
simply  called  things  by  their  real  names.  Though  he  sometimes 
becomes  too  diffuse,  and  though  we  meet  with  harsh  and  awkward 
forms  of  expression  in  his  songs,  yet  on  the  whole  he  gives  us 
happy  ideas  and  striking  scenes.  Gleim  is  most  successful  in  his 
fusion  of  epic  and  lyric  elements  ;  he  introduces  God  or  the  king,  or 
Frederick’s  generals  as  speaking ;  his  tone  is  now  grand,  now  naive, 
now  comic,  and  he  never  forgets  that  he  must  speak  as  being  himself 
a  fighter  in  the  battles  which  he  relates.  Lessing  might  well  assign  a 
high  special  literary  place  to  the  grenadier-poet,  and  expressly 
reckon  him  as  one  of  the  ‘  people ’  who  were  always  at  least  half 
a  century  behind  modern  refinements  of  language,  and  therefore 
opposed  to  French  canons  of  criticism.  The  grenadier,  Lessing 
says,  reminds  us  rather  of  the  German  ‘  bards,’  the  character  of 
whose  poems  we  can  divine  from  those  of  the  old  Northern  Skalds; 
nor  does  Lessing  forget  to  mention  the  younger  bards  of  the  age  of 
Hohenstaufen,  and  to  cite  their  style  as  a  parallel  to  Gleim’s.  He 
thus  shows  his  appreciation  not  only  of  the  value  of  national  and 
popular  poetry,  but  also  of  the  great  epochs  of  German  literature. 

With  these  and  such-like  reflections,  Lessing  introduced  the 
Grenadier-Songs  to  the  public,  and  the  impulse  thus  given  was 
partly  beneficial,  partly  injurious ;  we  soon  seem  to  trace  its 
influence  when  we  see  the  old  Northern  poetry  and  the  Minnesingers 
coming  into  favour  again,  and  the  longing  after  the  Germanic  bards 
feeding  itself  on  the  Celtic  Ossian.  The  general 
applause  called  forth  by  Gleim’s  war-lyrics  led  to 
many  imitations,  expressive  rather  of  local  patriotism 

than  of  national  feeling.  The  Saxon  Anacreontic  'Amazonen- 

r  lieder  * 

poet,  Christian  Felix  Weisse;  who  had  no  glorious 

deeds  to  celebrate,  wrote  in  1760  his  ‘  Amazon-songs,’  without 

reference  to  particular  battles  or  to  any  particular  war;  by 


Imitations 
of  Gleim. 

Weisse’s 


5« 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


‘Amazon’  he  means  a  girl  who  has  a  soldier-lover,  and  he  thus 
showed  that  such  popularity  as  lay  within  his  reach  could  only  be  at¬ 
tained  by  poetry  which  appealed  not  to  national  but  merely  to  private 
sentiment,  a  fact  which  he  later  on  still  further  attested  by  the  songs 

Gersten-  °f  operettas.  The  Schleswig-Holstein  Anacreontic 
berg’s  poet,  Heinrich  Wilhelm  Gerstenberg,  published  in 

‘Knegs-  1^62  ‘War-songs  of  a  Royal  Danish  Grenadier/  The 
lieder/  and  . 

Lavater  s  Zurich  theologian  Lavater,  a  disciple  of  .Bodmer  and 
‘  Sehweizer-  Breitinger,  produced  a  great  but  not  a  lasting  effect 
by  his  ‘  Swiss-songs/  And  in  1770  an  Austrian 


lieder.’ 


German 
interest  in 
foreign 
popular 
poetry. 


Cuirassier,  in  1778  a  Saxon  Dragoon  followed  with  limping  gait  in 
the  steps  of  the  Prussian  Grenadier. 

But  these  Grenadier-songs  also  produced  another  and  much 
wider  result.  This  new  form  of  popular  poetry  inspired 
the  Germans  with  a  higher  esteem  for  popular  poetry 
in  general;  Hagedorn  and  Hoffmanswaldau  had  al¬ 
ready  taken  an  interest,  half  scholarly,  half  poetical, 
in  the  lyric  poetry  of  foreign  nations,  and  especially  in 
the  poetry  of  uncivilised  nations.  This  interest  was  kept  up  in 
Lessing’s  circle,  as  is  attested  by  Kleist’s  ‘  Song  of  a  Laplander.’ 
Lessing  himself  published  a  couple  of  beautiful  Lithuanian 
‘  Dainos  ’ ;  he  was  averse  to  the  very  word  barbarian,  and 
was  glad  to  prove  that  there  are  poets  born  under  every  sky, 
and  that  strong  emotion  is  not  a  privilege  only  of  civilized 
nations.  Addison  had  already  directed  attention  to  the  English 
ballad-poetry,  and  Klopstock,  Gleim  and  others  had  profited 
English  ky  his  example.  Bishop  Percy’s  collection  of  Eng- 
ballads  and  lish  ballads  was,  therefore,  received  with  general 
Macpher-  rapture  in  Germany,  and  the  sentimental  heroic 
son  s  Ossian.  pQetry  Qf  Celtic  origin,  which  Macpherson  sent 

forth  under  the  name  of  Ossian,  was  greeted  with  enthusiastic 
applause  by  a  race  of  poets  full  of  sentiment  and  warlike  sym- 
Scandina-  pathies.  About  the  same  time  part  of  the  Edda  was 
vian  poetry,  rendered  easily  accessible  in  Mallet’s  ‘History  of  Den¬ 
mark’ and  its  German  translation;  and  in  1766  Gerstenberg,  by 
his  ‘  Gedicht  eines  Skalden,’  introduced  the  Northern  mythology 
into  German  poetry.  Klopstock,  who  had  long  designated  him- 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing . 


57 


self  and  his  friends  as  ‘Bards/  followed  Gerstenberg’s  lead,  and 
began  to  produce  his  ‘  Bardiete.’  The  Viennese  Jesuit  Denis, 
an  admirer  of  Klopstock,  translated  Ossian  into  hexameters,  and 
wrote  some  poetry  in  imitation  of  him ;  he  and  Klopstock  were 
imitated  in  their  turn,  and  thus  there  arose— long  after  the  Seven 
Years’  War  was  over,  and  when  there  was,  in  fact,  no  war  goingon 
anywhere — that  vague  kind  of  battle-poetry  of  which  Weisse  had 
set  the  example,  and  which  has  become  so  notorious  under  the 
name  of  the  ‘  Roaring  of  the  Bards  ’  ( Bardengebriill ). 

Lessing  looked  somewhat  coldly  on  this  whole  warlike  fit  which 

he  himself  had  helped  to  induce :  at  the  same  time  T  .  , 

1  ’  Lessing  s 

he  had  long  paid  much  attention  to  popular  poetry,  projected 
and  had  asked  himself  whether  it  would  not  be  pos-  play  of 

Lj  I  q  i  -|  r. 

sible  to  atone  for  Gottsched’s  sins,  and  restore  the 
connection,  which  Gottsched  in  his  conceit  had  so  wantonly 
destroyed,  between  the  regular  stage  and  the  old  forms  of  drama 
represented  by  the  wandering  comedians.  He  was  acquainted  with 
the  popular  play  of  Dr.  Faustus,  and  proposed  to  make  the 
magical  Doctor  a  character  for  the  regular  stage.  He  meant  to 
endow  him  with  a  passionate  love  of  truth,  but  finally  to  save 
him  from  hell ;  an  angel  was  to  declare  at  the  end  of  the  play : 
‘  God  has  not  given  to  man  the  noblest  of  impulses  in  order 
to  make  him  eternally  unhappy.’  Lessing  began  to  work  out  this 
plan  in  his  mind  about  the  same  time  as  that  of  ‘  Miss  Sara 
Samson,’  and  it  occupied  his  attention  for  a  long  time ;  he  even 
thought  of  two  ways  of  treating  the  subject,  one  of  which  was 
to  retain  the  traditional  devil,  while  the  other  was  to  manage  with¬ 
out  him.  In  neither  direction  did  he  get  beyond  the  mere  sketch ; 
for  the  time  being,  the  present,  the  Seven  Years’  War,  laid  hold  on 
his  imagination,  as  it  also  gave  new  impulses  to  his  life. 

His  odes  in  prose,  addressed  to  Gleim  and  Kleist,  were  disguised 
eulogies  of  the  Prussian  king,  with  here  and  there  a  sarcasm  upon 
the  condition  of  Saxony.  A  Spartan  war-song,  laconic  and  pruned 
of  all  superfluous  ideas,  marks  a  new  departure  in  .  , 

Lessing’s  taste.  In  the  little  drama  ‘  Philotas  ’  he  draws 
in  the  same  laconic  way  the  character  of  a  king’s  son,  who  kills 
himself  for  the  weal  of  his  fatherland  rather  than  fall  as  a  valuable 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XT. 


58 


hostage  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  The  same  laconic  style  is 
Lessing’s  noticeable  in  the  prose-fables  which  he  now  published. 

Fables.  Gellert  and  Gleim  had  written  fables  of  epic  length ; 
the  Prussian  Lichtwer  had  made  the  fable  the  vehicle  of  his  peculiar 
humour,  and  the  Swiss  Meyer  von  Knonau  had  embodied  in  it  close 
observation  of  nature.  Lessing’s  fables  displayed  none  of  these 
characteristics ;  they  have  just  the  epigrammatic  brevity  which  pro¬ 
perly  belongs  to  so  trifling  a  branch  of  didactic  poetry.  In  Lessing’s 
hands  the  fable  was  curtailed  of  the  exaggerated  importance  which 
it  had  acquired  in  an  age  of  literary  sterility.  But  Lessing  was 
able  to  convey  very  profound  matter  in  his  fables  in  spite  of  their 
concise  style  and  meagre  form  ;  we  catch  in  them  quiet  echoes  of 
the  strong  emotions  of  a  fiery  soul.  In  these  contrasts  of  true  with 
false  greatness,  of  real  with  fictitious  merit,  in  the  onslaught  made 
on  pretence,  hypocrisy,  and  fanaticism,  we  have  a  reflection  of  the 
views  of  life,  and  probably  of  the  life-experiences,  of  their  proud 
and  self-reliant  author ;  and  this  is  what  raises  these  poems  to  the 
rank  of  classical  masterpieces  in  their  modest  sphere.  These  fables, 
and  still  more  an  essay  attacking  the  established  view  of  the  fable, 
are  sufficient  evidence  that  Lessing  was  dissatisfied  with  current 
literary  ideals,  and  filled  with  the  presentiment  of  a  new  age  and 
a  new  art.  But  the  future  of  poetry  seemed  to  him  to  be  menaced 
by  the  stirring  political  events  and  interests  of  the  time,  which 
nearly  monopolised  men’s  minds  and  incapacitated  them  for  steady 
literary  work.  Accordingly,  in  various  literary  essays,  he  set  him¬ 
self  to  divert  men’s  attention  to  the  cause  of  letters  by  discouraging 
bunglers,  by  setting  those  who  had  talent  to  work  on  worthy  sub¬ 
jects,  and  by  rendering  men’s  artistic  perceptions  more  acute. 
But  such  an  undertaking  could  at  that  time  be  worked  from 
Berlin  alone.  Lessing  had  returned  to  Berlin  in  1758, 
Beilin 58  and  there  his  ‘  Literary  Letters  ’  began  to  appear  in 
His  1759-  Lessing  adopted  in  them  the  tone  of  conversa- 
*  Littsratur-  tj0nal  and  witty  letter-writing ;  he  wrote  with  reckless 
candour  and  veracity,  calling  a  bad  thing  bad  without 
circumlocution.  At  an  earlier  period  he  had,  perhaps  with  unneces¬ 
sary  vehemence,  held  up  to  ridicule  an  unsuccessful  translation  of 
Horace,  and  ruined  for  ever  in  public  opinion  the  unhappy  author, 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


59 


Pastor  Lange  of  the  older  Halle  school  (see  vol.  i.  p.  429),  a  protege 
of  the  Swiss  school,  and  a  fore-runner  of  Klopstock.  He  now  set 
himself  to  chastise,  though  with  less  severity,  the  bad  taste  of  a 
wider  circle  of  scribblers.  He  delivered  his  most  cruel  His 
judgment  on  Gottsched,  and  had  a  sharp  word  for  literary 
French  tragedy;  he  made  short  work  with  the  bad  criticisms- 
translators  and  the  prolific  literary  hacks;  he  found  fault  with 
Klopstock’s  odes  for  being  so  full  of  feeling  that  in  reading  them 
one  is  not  touched  at  all;  he  attacked  the  ‘  Nordischer  Aufseher  ’ 
(Northern  Observer),  a  periodical  which  was  issued  by  the  Klop- 
stockian  circle  in  Kopenhagen,  and  which  had  asserted  that  no  one 
could  be  an  upright  man  without  religion ;  he  sharply  rebuked 
Wieland  for  his  fanciful  extravagance.  Yet  we  must  not  suppose 
that  his  criticisms  were  wholly  negative;  there  was  no  want  of 
positive  suggestions  in  them.  After  the  first  flush  of  his  reforming 
ardour  had  passed  off,  Lessing,  satisfied  with  the  success  which  had 
rewarded  his  efforts,  retired  from  the  field  and  handed  over  the 
publication  to  his  friends,  Mendelssohn  and  Nicolai,  who  were  soon 
joined  by  Thomas  Abbt,  a  young  Swabian  by  birth,  but  enthusi¬ 
astically  Prussian  in  his  sentiments ;  Abbt  had  received  his  education 
in  Halle  and  at  Frankfort-on-the-Oder,  and,  fired  with  rapturous 
admiration  for  Frederick  and  his  generals,  had  written  an  essay  on 
‘  Death  for  the  Fatherland/  The  *  Literary  Letters ’  continued  to 
be  published  till  1765 ;  meanwhile  Lessing  had  been  since  1760  in 
Breslau,  as  secretary  of  General  Tauentzien,  whose  acquaintance  he 
had  made  through  Kleist.  In  Breslau,  Lessing  gave  himself  up  to 
various  diversions,  and  even  to  the  passion  of  gambling;  at  the 
same  time  he  was  carrying  on  important  studies,  and  was  pre¬ 
paring  himself  for  two  of  his  greatest  achievements,  ‘  Laokoon ' 
and  ‘  Minna  von  Barnhelm,'*  which  he  published  in  1766  and  1767, 
during  a  third  sojourn  in  Berlin.  The  one  reveals  his  Hellenic 
tendencies,  while  the  other  gives  expression  to  his  national  senti¬ 
ments.  The  former  is  connected  with  general  European  culture, 
while  the  latter  is  founded  on  the  special  interests  of  the  German 
nation,  and  marks  the  culminating  point  of  the  influence  of  the 
Seven  Years’  War  upon  German  letters. 

‘  Minna  von  Barnhelm  ’  was  the  first  really  national  drama 


6  o 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


dealing  with  contemporary  events,  and  in  it  the  Prussian  soldier 

Lessing’s  w^om  Gleim  had  introduced  into  lyric  poetry,  made  a 

Minna  von  glorious  debut  upon  the  comic  stage.  The  scene  is  laid 

Barnhelm,  jn  Berlin,  immediately  after  the  war:  the  characters 
1767 

are  no  longer  burdened  with  Greek  or  English  names, 
and  are  not  typical  masks,  but  living  people  with  individual  traits 
drawn  from  the  author’s  own  experience,  and  in  sympathy  with  his 
own  character.  There  is,  first  of  all,  the  Prussian  Major  Tellheim, 
a  retired  and  impoverished  officer,  generous,  noble,  and  sensitive 
even  to  excess ;  the  military  element  is  further  represented  by  the 
sergeant,  Paul  Werner,  and  the  Major’s  servant,  Just,  whom  his 
master  has  imbued  with  his  own  noble  nature.  The  female  cha¬ 
racters  are  :  the  widow  of  one  of  Tellheim’s  fellow-officers,  who 
finds  a  friend  and  benefactor  in  the  Major ;  his  fiance'e,  Minna,  of 
whom  he  no  longer  thinks  himself  worthy,  and  who,  therefore,  has 
to  woo  and  wed  him  in  despite  of  himself;  lastly,  Minna’s  maid 
Francisca,  an  improved  edition  of  those  Lisetles  whom  the  poet 
had  introduced  as  intrigantes  in  his  earlier  comedies,  written  after 
French  models.  All  these  characters  are  excellent,  loveable  and 
thoroughly  German  people.  The  play  is  a  homage  to  German 
women,  and  a  glorification  of  the  Prussian  army,  in  whose  midst 
Lessing  had  lived  for  four  years;  it  is,  furthermore,  a  eulogy  of  the 
great  king  who  looms  in  the  background  as  the  administrator  of 
that  justice  which  restores  to  the  Major  his  lost  pride,  vindicates 
his  injured  honour,  and  brings  everything  to  a  happy  conclusion. 
By  way  of  contrast  and  as  a  salve  to  wounded  national  feeling, 
Lessing  places  by  the  side  of  the  honest  German,  a  French  ad¬ 
venturer,  a  contemptible  character,  who  excites  the  laughter  of  the 
audience  by  his  broken  German.  All  this  is  very  happily  embodied 
in  scenes,  partly  mirthful,  partly  affecting.  ‘Minna  von  Barnhelm’ 
was  the  first  of  a  whole  succession  of  soldier-plays,  in  which  this 
hobby  was  driven  to  death,  and  finally,  in  time  of  peace,  became  as 
wearisome  as  the  ‘  Roaring  of  the  Bards.’ 

Lessing,  inspired  by  the  great  war,  and  as  a  voluntary  partisan 
of  Prussia,  had  thus  nationalised  the  German  drama,  and  had 
made  it  really  popular  without  the  least  sacrifice  of  artistic  form. 
Before  long,  much  the  same  thing  was  attempted  for  the  novel, 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


6 1 


‘  Miss 
Fanny 
Wilkes,’ 
and 

‘  Sophien’s 
Heise.’ 


though  by  an  extremely  inferior  writer,  namely,  the  theologian 
Johann  Timotheus  Hermes.  This  author,  who  was  a  The  German 
Prussian  by  birth,  rescued  the  novel  from  those  remote  Novel, 
regions  which  had  been  alone  thought  appropriate  to  it,  and  made 
it  a  story  of  current  events  in  Germany,  as  Grimmelshausen  had 
done  before  him.  As  Lessing  had  laid  the  scene  of  his  play 
‘Miss  Sara  Samson’  in  England,  and  thus  acknowledged  his  in¬ 
debtedness  to  the  English,  so  Hermes,  who  was  an  imitator  partly  of 
Richardson  and  partly  of  Fielding,  first  came  before  Hermes’s 
the  public  in  17 66  with  a  novel  entitled  ‘  Miss  Fanny 
Wilkes;’  subsequently,  however,  he  took  to  trivial  and 
common-place  representation  of  German  life  in  ‘  So- 
phien'sReise  von  Memel  nach  Sachsen’ (1769-1773), 
a  many-volumed  and  disconnected  medley  of  adven¬ 
ture,  moralisings,  and  sentiment.  Hermes  soon  found  a  successor 
in  Lessing’s  friend  Nicolai,  whose  novel  ‘  Sebaldus  Nothanker’ 
(x 773)  was  a  continuation  of  another  novel  written  some  time 
before,  Moriz  August  von  Thtimmel’s  ‘  Wilhelmine,’  a  burlesque 
epic  in  prose,  which  gained  the  esteem  of  Lessing.  Lessing  had  \ 
given  a  prose  form  to  tragedy,  the  fable,  and  the  ode,  and  now,  too, 
the  mock-heroic  poem  was  transformed  into  prose  ;  it  was  thus 
assimilated  to  the  novel  and  the  romance,  and  helped  to  bring 

these  two  forms  of  literature  down  to  the  interests  of _ _ 

Thummel  s 

every-day  life.  Thiimmel’s  ‘  Wilhelmine,’  which  ap-  <  wilhel- 
peared  in  1764,  was  an  attack  on  the  depravity  of  the 
German  courts.  The  heroine  is  a  chambermaid  in  a 
reigning  prince’s  household,  and  marries  the  good  village-clergy¬ 
man,  Sebaldus.  After  the  appearance  of  Oliver  Gold-  Nicolai’s 
smith’s  ‘Vicar  of  Wakefield  ’  in  1 766,  Nicolai  endowed  «  Sebaldus 
this  same  Sebaldus  with  some  qualities  derived  from  Nothanker,’ 

1773 

the  English  country-clergyman,  and  related  his  further 
fortunes  after  his  marriage.  Sebaldus  comes  in  contact  with  orthodox 
people,  pietists  and  free-thinkers,  with  noblemen  and  Prussian  sol¬ 
diers  ;  he  suffers  much  on  account  of  his  opinions,  is  persecuted 
and  driven  from  place  to  place,  but  is  finally  more  or  less  consoled 
by  winning  a  prize  in  a  lottery.  In  this  book  Nicolai  supplied  the 
public  with  a  patriotic  work,  dealing  with  middle-class  life,  and 


mine, 

1764. 


6  2 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.XI. 


setting  forth  enlightened  views  ;  and  in  spite  of  its  incessant  theolo¬ 
gical  discussions,  in  spite  of  the  traditional  apparatus  of  robbers, 
shipwrecks,  and  slave-merchants,  and  of  many  other  defects,  the 
book  proved  not  unpalatable  reading  to  those  who  were  not 
over-critical,  for  it  was  full  of  interesting  information  about 
religious  conditions  in  Berlin,  it  contained  a  couple  of  happily- 
conceived  characters,  and  teemed  with  protests  against  aristocratic 
arrogance,  Gallomania,  intolerance,  and  hypocrisy. 

But  at  the  same  time  that  German  poetry  was  establishing  itself 
Kevival  of  more  and  more  firmly  on  German  soil,  the  love  of 
classical  classical  antiquity  was  also  increasing.  The  humanis- 
infiuence.  qc  ejement  Gf  modern  culture  gained  redoubled  force 
from  the  general  spirit  of  creative  activity  which  animated  the  age, 
and  from  the  increased  energy  of  aesthetic  and  scientific  aspirations. 

While  the  war  lasted  the  German  nation  had  shown  a  Spartan 
endurance  and  valour,  and  had  rivalled  the  ancients  in  its  deeds ; 
now  that  peace  was  restored  the  greatness  of  Athens  seemed  a 
worthy  object  of  emulation.  In  January,  1771,  shortly  after  the 
German  comedy  and  the  German  novel  had  tendered  a  solution  of 
the  problems  of  national  life,  Frederick  the  Great  entrusted  the 
superintendence  of  Prussian  instruction  to  Baron  Zedlitz,  who  first 
made  the  Prussian  gymnasium  what  it  is,  or  what  it  was  in  its  best 
times.  Zedlitz  doubled  and  trebled  the  number  of  hours  to  be 
devoted  to  Greek  instruction,  substituted  for  the  New  Testament 
the  great  writers  of  antiquity,  and  thus  transformed  the  Gymnasium 
of  the  Reformation  period  into  the  modern  classical  school.  As  a 
parallel  to  this  we  find  Lessing,  before  he  completed  his  £  Minna 
von  Barnhelm/  publishing  his  ‘  Laokoon,’  a  work  in  which  he 
ranged  himself  by  the  side  of  Winckelmann,  and  of  those  writers 
who  not  only  gave  an  intellectual  justification  of  the  prevalent  ten¬ 
dency  to  return  to  the  pure  Greek  forms,  but  also  educated  and 
developed  the  taste  for  classical  antiquity. 

The  course  of  Winckelmann's  life  was  exactly  the  reverse  of 
Winckel-  Lessing’s.  Lessing  was  drawn  from  Saxony  to  Prussia, 
mann's  there  to  have  his  genius  moulded  by  Prussian  influ- 
Ciassicism.  ences .  tpe  prussian  Winckelmann,  on  the  contrary, 

left  his  native  province  to  go  to  Dresden;  and  there,  in  the  classic 


Lessing. 


Ch.  XT.] 


63 


His 

1  Gedanken 
uber  die 
Nachah- 
mung  der 


His 

Geschicbte 
dfer  Kunst 
des  Alter- 
tbums,’ 
1764. 


abode  of  German  Rococo ,  found  satisfaction  for  his  aesthetic 
nature  in  the  treasures  of  modern  and  ancient  art. 

There,  in  intercourse  with  the  Austrian  Oeser,  a 
many-sided  artist  and  stimulating  character,  he  learnt 
to  worship  that  ideal  of  noble  simplicity  and  quiet 
grandeur  which  he  revealed  to  the  world  in  1755  Griechischen 
in  his  ‘  Thoughts  on  the  imitation  of  the  Greeks  Werke  in 

d.6X*  01*61 

in  painting  and  sculpture/  But  his  stay  at  Dresden  urd  Bild_ 
was  only  preparatory  to  his  life  at  Rome,  whither  hauerkunst/ 
his  conversion  to  the  Catholic  Church  naturally  led  1755. 
him.  There,  in  the  midst  of  the  grand  ruins  of  the  ancient  world, 
he  enjoyed  unparalleled  personal  liberty,  and  in  1764 
gave  to  the  world  his  ‘  History  of  Ancient  Art/  the 
first  historical  work  of  art  in  the  German  language; 
in  it  he  adopted  that  philosophic  and  generalising 
treatment  of  history  which  had  been  initiated  by 
Montesquieu,  and  combined  with  it  a  vast  experience  and  know¬ 
ledge  of  facts  at  first  hand,  along  with  a  marvellous  divination  of 
the  characteristics  of  the  purest  Hellenic  style,  although  no  monu¬ 
ments  of  that  style  had  at  that  time  been  recovered.  Nor  should 
we  omit  to  notice  the  remarkable  sharpness  of  perception  and  en¬ 
thusiasm  in  observation  which  the  book  attests,  nor  the  graphic 
language  peculiar  to  Winckelmann,  rich  and  sensuous  in  its  de¬ 
scription  of  works  of  art,  and  often  rising  to  poetic  sublimity,  nor 
lastly  the  glorious  principle  with  which  the  work  culminates,  that 
art  flourishes  where  liberty  reigns. 

Winckelmann  gave  an,  aesthetic  turn  to  classical  studies  by  re¬ 
cognising  as  he  did  the  importance  of  a  knowledge  of 
Greek  art  and  by  advocating  the  study  of  monuments 
in  connection  with  ancient  literature.  But  Winckel¬ 
mann  was  only  the  most  important  representative  of 
a  wide-spread  tendency  of  the  age.  Three  years  be¬ 
fore  the  appearance  of  the  ‘  Thoughts  on  the  imitation  of  the 
Greeks/  a  certain  Abbd  Laugier  had  made  a  pitiless  attack  on 
the  highly  ornate  style  of  architecture  then  in  vogue,  and  had 
condemned  all  styles  except  the  three  orders  of  Greek  architecture. 
Practical  architecture  had  entered  on  the  same  path,  and  simplicity, 


Revived 
study  of 
Greek  Art 
and 

Literature. 


*4 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


self-restraint,  and  close  imitation  of  the  ancients  had  become  its 
watchwords.  German  Professors  like  Ernesti  in  Leipzig,  and 
Gesner  in  Leipzig  and  Gottingen,  had  begun  to  pay  greater  regard 
to  the  Greeks.  Christ,  also  a  Leipzig  man,  and  Lessing’s  chief 
teacher,  had  bidden  his  pupils  study  ancient  art,  and  Gesner’s 
Greek  ‘  Chrestomathie’  had  established  itself  in  the  schools  by 
the  side  of  the  New  Testament.  In  Halle  Professor  Schulze 
was  wont  in  his  lectures  expressly  to  compare  the  Greeks  and 
Romans,  and  to  adjudge  pre-eminence  to  the  former;  Berlin  pos¬ 
sessed  such  a  school-master  as  Rector  Damm,  of  whom  Winckel- 
mann  learned  Greek ;  the  Saxon  princely  schools  were  beginning 
to  put  the  Greek  classics  in  the  hands  of  their  scholars.  German 
poetry  reaped  decided  advantage  from  this  Hellenising  tendency ; 
though  the  serious  Greek  lyric  poetry  was  still  chiefly  represented  to 
the  Germans  by  Horace,  the  disciple  of  the  Greeks,  yet  Anacreon 
had  already  exercised  a  strong  influence  on  German  poets.  Thanks 
to  Breitinger’s  efforts  the  name  of  Homer  began  to  be  mentioned 
with  more  and  more  reverence,  and  Wieland  and  others  derived 
from  Plato  and  Xenophon  an  ideal  picture  of  Socrates,  with  which 
they  mingled  their  own  moral  ideals.  The  same  Wieland,  by  the 
magic  of  his  imagination,  transported  his  readers  to  the  Greek 
shore  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  and  made  them  quite  at  home 
among  the  contemporaries  of  Pericles;  his  Greeks  may  some¬ 
times  have  rather  resembled  Frenchmen  of  the  eighteenth  century 
a.  d.  than  Hellenes  of  the  fifth  century  b.c.,  but  this  resemblance 
really  only  bears  witness  to  a  sympathetic  conception  of  ancient 
times,  and  the  neo-Greeks  of  Wieland’s  creation  made  it  all  the  easier 
for  the  Germans  to  become  acquainted  with  the  genuine  old  Hel¬ 
lenes.  The  need  of  discarding  French  models  in  favour  of  original 
Greek  ones  began  to  be  more  and  more  strongly  felt.  Elias  Schlegel 
returned  to  Sophocles,  though  without  discarding  the  French  Alex¬ 
andrine  tragedy.  Pyra,  as  we  know,  wished  to  revive  the  ancient 
chorus.  Klopstock  introduced  Greek  metres  into  German  poetry. 
Lessing  early  learnt  from  the  characters  of  Theophrastus  much 
that  was  of  use  to  him  in  his  comedies ;  in  the  fable  he  returned 
to  Aesop ;  he  meant  to  write  a  life  of  Sophocles,  to  treat  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  Philoctetes,  and  to  attempt  a  Nemesis-tragedy  based  on 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


65 


classical  models.  Winckelmann’s  first  work  incited  Lessing  to  devote 
his  attention  to  the  study  of  ancient  art,  and  the  feeling  that  a 
review  of  aesthetic  criticism  up  to  that  time  was  much  needed  led 
him  to  make  the  important  researches  embodied  in  ‘  Laocoon.’ 

The  work  was  intended  to  fill  three  volumes,  of  which,  however, 
only  one  appeared.  Lessing  could  as  little  compete  Lessing’s 
with  Winckelmann  in  the  advancement  of  the  history  ‘  Laocoon.’ 
of  ancient  art,  as  he  could  in  his  acquaintance  with  the  monuments. 
Neither  from  the  ‘  Laocoon,’  nor  from  the  controversial  literature 
which  it  called  forth,  did  archaeology  directly  reap  any  great  advan¬ 
tage  ;  only  the  beautiful  little  treatise — ‘  How  the  ancients  depicted 
death/  first  established  a  fact  now  well  known  to  all,  and  restored 
the  genius  with  the  reversed  torch  on  many  of  our  graves.  In  de¬ 
fending  ‘beauty’  as  the  supreme  law  of  ancient  art,  and  of  sculpture 
and  painting  in  general,  in  esteeming  beauty  of  form  higher  than 
that  of  colour,  in  desiring  that  expression  should  be  toned  down 
and  subordinated  to  beauty — in  all  this  Lessing  stood  in  essential 
agreement  with  Winckelmann,  and  he  and  Winckelmann  together 
established  grandeur  and  repose  as  the  ideal  of  Hellenic  sculpture 
and  painting,  and  as  the  principle  which  should  govern  modern 
artists.  But  when  Winckelmann  went  further  and  derived  the  dis¬ 
tinctive  character  of  the  Greek  masterpieces  from  a  certain  Stoical 
composure  of  soul,  and  tried  to  discover  the  same  spirit  in  the 
Greek  poets,  Lessing  could  not  agree  with  him.  Heroic  stoicism, 
which  only  excites  cold  admiration,  was  not  at  all  to  his  mind  ;  and 
it  was  easy  to  show  that  it  was  also  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 

Greeks.  In  the  development  of  this  controversy  with  „  .  , 

r  f  J  Lessing  s 

Winckelmann,  Lessing  has  given  us  signal  proof  of  his  controversy- 

ability  to  think  out  a  thing  in  the  abstract,  and  at  the  with 

same  time  to  accurately  observe  and  appreciate  facts.  Wmckel" 

11  mann. 

He  pointed  out  how  differently  the  death  of  Laocoon 
had  been  treated  by  Virgil  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  the  Greek 
sculptor  on  the  other,  and  how  in  this  they  had  only  followed  the 
different  laws  regulating  poetry  and  plastic  art ;  he  sought  to  re¬ 
move  the  confusion  between  the  two,  and  above  all  to  abolish  that 
kind  of  word-painting  in  poetry,  which  had  come  into  vogue  in 
Germany,  particularly  through  Breitinger’s  influence.  He  sought 


VOL.  11. 


F 


66 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XT. 


to  deduce  the  limits  of  the  two  arts  from  the  nature  of  the  means 
with  which  each  must  work,  and  argued  that  good  writing  only 
describes  things  and  persons  indirectly  through  their  actions,  and 
that  Homer  in  particular  only  depicts  by  narrating.  He  thus  fur¬ 
nished  most  valuable  contributions  to  the  theory  of  the  epic,  put  an 
end  to  mere  word-painting,  and  fixed  the  method  of  Wieland  and 
of  his  successors  in  this  branch  of  poetry.  He  set  forth  his  views 
in  a  kind  of  impromptu  style,  without  attempting  systematic  de¬ 
duction  of  them  ;  his  work  has  all  the  liveliness  of  oral  exposition, 
and  yet  it  really  rests  throughout  on  the  basis  of  a  consistent  system. 

It  seems  that  for  Lessing  an  important  personal  hope  was  bound 
up  with  this  work ;  he  hoped  by  it  to  attract  the  King’s  attention, 
and  to  obtain  the  appointment  of  Director  of  the  Royal  Library 
in  Beilin,  a  post  for  which  both  his  name  and  Winckelmann’s  had 
been  mentioned  favourably  to  the  King.  But  both  Winckelmann 
and  Lessing  were  destined  to  be  disappointed  in  their  hopes.  The 
Lessing  and  King’s  impression  of  Lessing  had  been  formed  by  the 
Frederick  description  which  the  enraged  Voltaire  had  given  him 
the  Great.  Qf  tpe  y0ung  author  who  had  offended  him  ;  Frederick, 
therefore,  utterly  refused  to  appoint  Lessing  to  the  post.  Winckel¬ 
mann’s  appointment  also  fell  through  owing  to  a  dispute  about 
the  salary,  Frederick  declaring  that  the  proposed  two  thousand 
Thalers  (£300)  was  too  much  for  a  German,  and  that  he  would 
only  give  him  half  that  amount.  In  the  end  an  utterly  incom¬ 
petent  Frenchman  was  appointed  over  the  heads  of  Lessing  and 
Winckelmann.  If  Frederick  could  only  have  recognised  it,  no 
German  author  was  really  so  akin  to  his  inmost  character  as  Les¬ 
sing.  Both  had  the  same  vivacity  and  ambition,  the  same  youthful 
thirst  for  glory  which  led  them  recklessly  to  humiliate  their  ene¬ 
mies,  the  same  severity  towards  what  was  bad ;  both  felt  strongly 
the  need  of  friendship,  while  both  were  but  slightly  susceptible  to  the 
love  of  women ;  in  both  enjoyment  of  life  was  combined  with  a  strong 
sense  of  duty;  both  had  the  same  liberal  views,  and  tolerance,  the 
same  clear,  ready,  and  rational  style.  Lessing  demanded  of  a 
historian  that  he  should  relate  contemporary  events,  a  demand  which 
Frederick  fulfilled.  Lessing  introduced  strict  rule  in  literature,  as 
Frederick  did  in  the  field  and  in  home-government.  Lessing,  like 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


67 


the  great  king,  defended  the  national  cause  against  the  foreigner. 
There  were  never  two  men  more  created  for  each  other  than  Lessing 
and  Frederick  the  Great,  and  Frederick  could  not  have  found  any¬ 
where  a  subject  who  would  have  served  him  with  greater  faithfulness 
and  a  more  worthy  aim,  or  a  writer  who  would  have  so  fully  compen¬ 
sated  him  for  the  loss  of  what  attracted  him  in  his  beloved  French. 
But  the  unproved  and  unjust  accusation  made  years  before  by  a 
Frenchman,  whom  the  king  despised  much  as  he  admired  him, 
was  sufficient  reason  for  striking  out  the  name  of  this  German  poet 
and  scholar  for  ever  from  the  list  of  those  who  might  serve  him. 

Lessing  shook  the  dust  of  Brandenburg  from  his  feet,  and  went 

in  April  1767  to  Hamburg,  where  a  new  disappoint-  Lessing  and 

ment  awaited  him.  A  permanent  German  national  the  Hamburg 

Theatre  was  about  to  be  founded  in  the  town  which  theatre, 

1767 

had  been  the  home  of  the  early  German  opera,  the 
birth-place  of  Brockes  and  Hagedorn,  and  which  was  then  the  place 
of  residence  of  so  many  old  and  young  scholars  and  poets.  The  art 
of  acting  had  been  raised  to  a  much  higher  level  since  the  first  start 
had  been  given  it  by  the  efforts  of  Caroline  Neuber,  already  men¬ 
tioned  in  connection  with  Gottsched.  The  Schonemann,  Koch, 
and  Ackermann  companies  had  become  quite  celebrated,  and  their 
best  actors  were  beginning  to  give  up  imitating  the  French,  and  to 
aim  at  a  less  affected  style  of  acting.  Many  excellent  actors  and 
actresses  in  Hamburg  were  ready  to  support  Lessing  in  his  new 
dramatic  schemes.  Lessing  was  to  be  the  reporter, 
was  to  train  the  actors  by  his  free  criticisms,  and  to 
educate  the  public  taste.  From  the  first  of  May  1767 
his  ‘  Hamburgische  Dramaturgic  ’  appeared  twice  a 
week ;  it  was  a  paper  written  entirely  by  himself,  and 
exclusively  devoted  to  the.  interests  of  the  National  Theatre.  But 
the  actors,  as  usual,  did  not  care  to  be  found  fault  with,  but  only  to 
be  praised ;  the  public  did  not  show  any  very  great  sympathy  with 
the  undertaking,  and  the  means  soon  began  to  fail.  The  scheme 
was  abandoned  after  two  years,  and  the  ‘  Dramaturgic/  which  had 
for  some  time  given  up  criticising  the  representations  regularly,  and 
had  introduced  general  discussions  of  the  drama  instead,  did 
not  get  further  than  two  volumes.  But  these  two  volumes  are  of 


The 

‘  Hamburg¬ 
ische 
Drama¬ 
turgic.' 


F  2 


68 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


inexhaustible  value  ;  they  are  rich  in  information  about  the  plays 
of  the  time,  rich  in  penetrating  criticism  of  dramatic  art  and  dra¬ 
matic  poetry  in  general.  They  form  a  continuation  to  the  theatrical 
periodicals  which  Lessing  had  published  in  his  youth,  a  continuation 
to  his  earlier  polemical  writings  on  the  weaknesses  of  the  French 
school,  and  a  sequel  to  his  ‘  Laocoon.’ 

In  subsequent  volumes  the  *  Laocoon  ’  was  to  have  culmi- 
Lessing’s  nated  in  a  glorification  of  the  drama  as  the  highest 
theory  of  form  of  poetry.  All  art,  Lessing  declared,  must  aim 
the  drama.  at  qie  direct  representation  of  nature  ;  and  poetry, 
which  can  only  describe  and  represent  indirectly  and  by  means  of 
words,  rises  in  the  drama  to  the  full  level  of  a  first-hand  represen¬ 
tation,  a  real  imitation  of  life.  We  can  judge  from  this  how  deeply 
interested  Lessing  must  have  been  in  coming  into  direct  contact 
with  an  excellent  theatre.  He  had  already  discussed  the  theory  of 
the  fable,  and  in  ‘  Laocoon  ’  had  furnished  contributions  to  the 
theory  of  the  epic,  and  it  must  have  seemed  to  him  of  far  greater 
importance  to  lay  a  theoretical  basis  for  his  favourite  branch  of 
poetry,  the  drama.  As  in  the  fable  he  had  held  up  iEsop,  and  in 
the  epic  Homer,  as  infallible  models,  so  now  in  the  drama  the 
Greeks  of  the  best  period  were  his  guiding-stars,  Aristotle  for  theory 
and  Sophocles  for  practice.  As  in  ‘  Laocoon  ’  he  had  sought  after 
true  poetry  and  true  painting,  so  now  he  sought  out  the  way, 
which  he  had  already  indicated  in  his  ‘  Literary  Letters,’  towards 
the  true  drama.  In  common  with  the  French  school  he  laid 
the  greatest  weight  on  the  authority  of  Aristotle ;  in  common  with 
Aristotle,  the  Wolffian  philosophy,  in  which  he  too  had  been 
Sophocles,  educated,  he  attached  the  greatest,  nay,  too  great  im- 
Shakspeare  Portance  to  correct  definition  as  the  basis  of  all  theory. 

his  In  Aristotle’s  definition  of  tragedy,  or  at  least  in  his 
authorities.  own  interpretation  of  it,  Lessing  thought  he  laid  his 
finger  on  the  true  essence  of  the  drama,  and  with  this  defini¬ 
tion  he  found  the  dramas  of  Sophocles  to  be  in  full  agree¬ 
ment  ;  but,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  dramas  of  Shakspeare 
seemed  to  him  to  be  also  in  full  agreement  with  the  demands  of 
Aristotle,  and  this  judgment  of  his  shows  how  strong  was  the  hold 
upon  him  of  the  literature  of  a  kindred  nation,  and  how  surely  he 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


69 


penetrated  through  the  semblance  to  the  substance,  and  was  able 
to  discern  true  genius  under  different  forms.  Such  tragic  elements 
as  were  common  to  Sophocles  and  to  Shakspeare  seemed  to  him  to 
constitute  the  essence  of  tragedy,  which,  as  he  thought,  should  excite 
not  amazement  but  sympathy,  by  representing  overpowering  events 
as  inevitable  consequences  flowing  from  the  character  of  the  agents. 
From  this  standpoint  he  criticised  the  achievements  of  German 
tragedy  up  to  his  own  time,  and  the  tragedies  of  his  old  friend 
Weisse  did  not  come  off  much  better  under  his  treatment  than 
the  comedies  of  Frau  Gottsched.  Then  he  attacked  the  false  tragedy 
of  Corneille,  Racine,  and  Voltaire,  the  false  interpretation  and  arbi¬ 
trary  perversion  of  the  Aristotelian  doctrines  by  the  French,  and 
pointed  out  how  entirely  Voltaire  had  failed  in  his  attempts  to  rival 
Shakspeare  in  depicting  passion  or  in  introducing  supernatural 
elements  into  the  drama.  It  was  at  Voltaire  that  Lessing’s  hardest 
blows  were  levelled,  for  in  him  he  was  attacking  a  living  man, 
a  personal  enemy  who  had  done  him  grave  injury ;  and  besides, 
was  he  not  indirectly  avenging  the  cause  of  German  literature 
against  Frederick  the  Great,  by  lowering  the  reputation  of  a  poet 
whom  the  king  esteemed  as  the  highest  genius?  Still,  Lessing 
was  no  indiscriminate  hater  of  the  French.  In  earlier  life  it 
was  Diderot  who  had  nerved  him  to  attack  the  French  stage,  and 


who  had  directed  his  attention  to  the  special  limitations  of  the 
various  arts  ;  they  both  agreed  in  preferring  the  tragedy  of  middle- 
class  life.  Lessing  had  translated  Diderot’s  plays,  and  always 
gratefully  acknowledged  the  influence  which  this  worthy  philosopher 
had  exercised  upon  him. 

Lessing  broke  off  his  *  Dramaturgic  *  in  a  fit  of  Lessing’s 
indignation,  and  resuming  those  archaeological  studies  controversy- 
which  he  had  dropped  in  displeasure  some  years  ^he^nti' 
before,  proceeded  to  fling  his  *  Antiquarian  Letters  ’  quarische 
at  the  head  of  Professor  Klotz  of  Halle.  Klotz  was  Briefed 
an  elegant  Latin  scholar,  who  had  come  into  a  good  appoint¬ 
ment  early  in  life,  and  had  skilfully  organized  a  clique  of  his  own 
with  its  own  periodicals.  He  now  set  his  clique  and  his  papers 
to  bait  Lessing.  Lessing  struck  all  such  opponents  to  the  ground 
in  the  person  of  their  chief,  and  gibbeted  once  and  for  all  the 


7o 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great.  [ch.  xi. 


mean  intrigues  of  this  miserable  pedant.  Lessing  dropped  this 
controversy  also  in  disgust ;  he  longed  to  get  away  from  Hamburg, 
away  from  Germany,  and  to  go  straight  to  Rome.  On  the  8th  of 
June,  1768,  Winckelmann  had  been  assassinated  in  Trieste.  His 
place  in  Rome  was  vacant,  and  Lessing  thought  he  might  fill  it ;  but 
not  in  the  literal  sense,  as  his  German  enemies  supposed,  who  were 
only  too  anxious  that  he  should  incur  the  odium  of  changing  his 
religion1.  What  Lessing  wanted  was  to  succeed  to  the  position  in 
which  Winckelmann  had  done  so  much  for  the  archaeological 
interests  of  Europe,  and  to  live  with  the  monuments  of  ancient  art 
close  at  hand  in  the  city  where  the  best  of  them  were  preserved.  For 
he  felt,  like  Winckelmann,  that  to  make  these  monuments  known, 
to  interpret  them,  to  classify  them  historically,  and  to  subject  them 
to  aesthetic  criticism  was  a  task  demanding  a  man’s  full  powers, 
and  worthy  of  his  undivided  attention. 

But  the  journey  was  deferred,  evidently  because  Lessing  could 


not  find  the  necessary  money,  and  it  was  finally  given 


at  Wolfen-  that  of  Librarian  at  Wolfenbiittel.  The  post  was 
biittel,  small,  it  is  true,  but  it  was  worthy  of  his  acceptance, 
177°‘  and  suited  to  his  tastes. 

In  Brunswick  the  Abbot  Jerusalem,  a  clergyman  of  enlightened 
views,  endeavoured  to  the  utmost  of  his  power  to  help  on  German 
poets,  in  the  same  way  as  we  have  noticed  the  court  chaplain  Sack 
did  in  Berlin.  Jerusalem’s  advice  was  of  great  influence  in  the 
appointment  of  the  teachers  at  the  Brunswick  £  Carolinum,’  an  in¬ 
stitution  founded  by  Duke  Charles  on  the  model  of  the  English 
public  schools.  Some  of  the  writers  in  the  ‘  Bremen  Contributions/ 
Gartner,  Ebert,  Zacharia,  and  Schmid,  had  received  masterships 
there,  and  Klopstock  was  just  about  to  join  them  when  the  call  to 
Kopenhagen  opened  more  agreeable  prospects  to  him.  In  this 
circle  and  from  these  teachers  the  hereditary  prince  of  Brunswick 
derived  his  culture ;  and  it  was  at  his  demand,  reinforced  by  Ebert's 
strong  approval,  that  the  librarianship  at  Wolfenbiittel  was  offered 
to  Lessing.  He  accepted  the  offer,  and  entered  on  the  duties  of 
his  office  in  the  spring  of  1770. 


1  Winckelmann  had  turned  Roman  Catholic. 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


7i 


Lessing's  writings  now  assumed  for  the  most  part  a  bibliogra¬ 
phical  character.  He  made  many  a  happy  find  in  Lessing’s 
the  treasures  of  the  library  confided  to  his  care  ;  and  bibliogra- 
whenever  he  lighted  on  a  valuable  and  unknown  work,  pbical  pub- 
he  always  furnished  the  learned  public  with  a  full  re-  llcat:ons- 
port  of  his  discoveries.  Yet  the  impressions  wrought  on  him  by 
the  Hamburg  stage  were  still  active  in  his  mind.  His  important 
advances  in  the  recognition  of  the  principles  on  which  the  drama 
rested  were  yet  to  bear  some  tangible  fruit.  He  wished  to  put  his 
theory  to  a  practical  proof,  and  did  so  in  his  ‘  Emilia 
Galotti,'  which  appeared  in  1772.  The  piece  had  'Emilia 
been  planned  long  ago  ;  it  was  meant  at  first  to  have  Galotti,’ 

been  founded  on  the  story  of  Virginia,  and,  like  1772' 
other  tragedies  which  Lessing  sketched  in  the  fire  of  youth,  was  to 
have  extolled  an  uprising  in  the  cause  of  liberty ;  later  on,  however, 
he  gave  up  the  idea  of  dramatising  public  affairs,  and  transferred 
the  scene  to  a  small  modern  Italian  principality.  The  play  gives 
us  a  terrible  picture  of  a  princely  egoist,  who,  in  the  satisfaction  of 
his  riotous  desires,  sets  the  life  of  his  subjects  at  nought ;  he  hurries 
from  one  amour  to  another,  drives  one  woman  almost  mad  by  de¬ 
serting  her,  then  murders  a  bridegroom  in  order  to  possess  his 
bride  ;  the  girl  herself  longs  for  death,  and  at  her  request  her  father 
plunges  a  dagger  into  her  heart  and  thus  saves  her  from  dishonour. 
The  characters  are  all  excellently  drawn ;  Emilia's  worthy  old 
father,  rough  and  recklessly  impetuous,  yet  at  the  same  time  afraid 
of  his  own  impetuosity;  the  weak,  imprudent,  somewhat  down¬ 
trodden  mother;  the  honest,  straightforward,  manly  bridegroom; 
the  girl  herself,  charming,  modest,  the  most  timid  yet  the  most 
resolute  of  her  sex;  the  refined,  princely  profligate,  who  can  con¬ 
verse  cleverly  with  a  painter  about  art,  and  whose  mind  is  open  to 
all  higher  interests,  but  who  knows  no  restraint  to  his  wishes,  be¬ 
cause  he  thinks  himself  above  all  laws ;  his  first  victim,  the  half¬ 
crazy  Orsina;  his  pliant  courtier  Marinelli,  the  servant  of  his  lusts, 
in  whom  every  feeling  of  morality  and  honour  has  been  destroyed 
by  associating  with  the  despot — all  these  characters,  and  even  the 
bandits  hired  by  Marinelli  are  graphically  presented  to  us,  and  the 
course  of  action  springs,  as  the  ‘  Dramaturgic’  demanded,  from  the 


72 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


nature  of  the  characters.  Though  the  plot  may  have  been  settled 
beforehand,  and  the  characters  only  drawn  out  afterwards  to  fit  in 
with  it,  though  the  father  may  be  blamed,  and  has  been,  for  stab¬ 
bing  his  daughter  and  not  the  despot — yet  all  must  own  that  the 
plot  is  developed  without  any  awkward  halts  or  gaps,  and  the  diffi¬ 
culties  involved  in  its  presentation  on  the  stage  got  over  with  won¬ 
derful  ease.  Lessing  proved  himself  in  this  piece  a  master  of  tragedy 
as  in  his  ‘  Minna  ’  he  had  shown  himself  a  master^  of  comedy. 
As  the  author  of  ‘Emilia  Galotti’  he  became  the  real  teacher  of  a 
younger  generation  of  dramatists. 

But  Lessing’s  dramatic  activity  was  not  to  end  with  this  play. 

‘Nathan  He  had  ^  to  r^se  to  a  yet  higher  level.  The 

der  Weise/  form  of  the  prose  drama,  which  he  had  introduced  by 
1779.  p-g  <  §ara>»  an(j  which  he  had,  notwithstanding  ear¬ 
lier  intentions  to  the  contrary,  remained  faithful  in  his  ‘  Emilia/ 
was  yet  to  be  abandoned  for  the  drama  in  verse,  in  order  that  he 
might  clothe  a  most  ideal  subject  in  a  worthy  form,  and  add  the 
grace  and  charm  of  rhythm  to  a  noble  hymn  of  all-embracing 
human  love.  ‘  Emilia  Galotti  ’  was  followed  unexpectedly,  after 
seven  years,  by  ‘  Nathan  the  Wise/  Theological  controversies 
induced  him  to  write  this,  just  as  contact  with  a  real  stage  had 
induced  him  to  write  ‘  Emilia.’ 

He  seemed  to  be  absorbed  in  his  duties  as  librarian,  and  actively 
engaged  in  various  departments  of  harmless  science,  when  in  1773 
he  began  his  ‘  Contributions  to  history  and  literature  drawn  from 
the  treasures  of  the  Wolfenbiittel  library.’  But  in  the  next  year 
the  question  of  toleration  came  up  incidentally  in 
‘Fragmente  connection  with  some  point  of  literary  history,  and 
eines  Wolf-  there  appeared,  without  exciting  much  notice,  the  first 
enbutteler  jnstaiment  0f  a  publication  purporting  to  be  extracts 

Ungenann-  r  r  r  o 

ten,’  edited  from  the  papers  of  an  *  anonymous  Wolfenbiitteler/ 

by  Lessing,  which  was  followed  by  further  instalments  in  1777  and 
1774 

1778.  These  papers  contained  the  sharpest  attacks 
on  Christianity  ;  the  writer  denounced  the  ‘  crying-down  of  reason 
from  the  pulpits/  questioned  the  possibility  of  a  Revelation,  and  de¬ 
nied  the  character  of  a  Revelation  to  the  Old  Testament  on  special 
grounds;  in  the  New  Testament  the  story  of  the  Resurrection 


Lessing. 


Ch  XI.] 


73 


in  particular  was  sharply  criticised,  and  highly  irreverent  views 
were  put  forth  as  to  the  aims  of  Christ  and  his  disciples. 

In  truth,  this  new  work,  which  Lessing  disguised  as  a  humble 
bibliographical  publication,  precipitated  a  crisis  in  the  history  of 
Protestant  theology  and  of  the  Protestant  Church.  The  whole 
theological  world  was  soon  in  uproar,  though  it  had  seemed  fully 
prepared  for  the  strongest  criticism.  The  general  development  of 
the  Church  and  of  religious  doctrine  had  been  in  a  decidedly  liberal 
direction  ;  orthodoxy  was  retreating,  and  most  of  the  influential 
Church  appointments  were  filled  by  the  Liberals.  Liberal 
The  influence  of  the  English  Freethinkers  was  mak-  theological 
ing  itself  more  and  more  felt,  and  their  views  were  criticism  in 
secretly  accepted  by  many,  and  openly  avowed  by  Crermany- 
a  few.  The  society  of  Freemasons,  which  had  spread  from  Eng¬ 
land  about  the  time  of  the  accession  of  Frederick  the  Great,  under¬ 
mined  the  esteem  hitherto  cherished  for  positive  religion,  and 
Voltaire’s  malicious  criticisms  on  Christianity  were  eagerly  read  in 
Germany,  as  in  the  whole  of  Europe.  An  increasing  indifference 
to  dogma  was  everywhere  apparent,  and  theological  writings  were 
becoming  more  elegant  in  style,  more  secular  in  tone.  As  in  the 
time  of  the  Humanists,  so  now,  the  general  advances  in  history 
and  philology  were,  after  German  fashion,  at  once  turned  to  the 
account  of  theology  in  particular,  and  this  could  only  result  in  an 
increasing  independence  of  thought  and  criticism,  Ernesti, 
and  a  corresponding  diminution  of  faith.  The  cele-  Michaelis, 
brated  scholar,  Ernesti  of  Leipzig,  was  the  first  to  and  Semler- 
begin  an  unbiassed  and  strictly  learned  interpretation  of  the  Bible, 
in  opposition  to  dogmatic  prepossessions.  He  was  followed  in 
this  by  Michaelis  and  Semler,  both  of  whom  studied  at  Halle. 
Semler  became  the  father  of  modern  historical  criticism  from 
original  sources ;  he  was  the  first  to  distinguish  between  contem¬ 
porary  and  second-hand  evidence,  original  and  indirect  authorities, 
and  treated  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  as  monuments  of 
literary  history,  trying  to  discover  the  purpose  with  which  they  were 
written,  and  the  occasions  which  called  them  forth.  Lie  wished  to 
separate  what  was  of  permanent  value  in  them  from  what  was 
merely  local  and  temporary.  But  the  boldness  of  Semler  and 


[Ch.  XI. 


74 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


of  every  other  scholar  was  far  surpassed  by  the  one-sided  and 
Re  imams’  sweeP’no  criticism  put  forth  by  the  Hamburg  philo- 


views  pub¬ 
lished  by- 
Lessing  in 
his  ‘  Frag- 


sopher  and  professor,  Hermann  Samuel  Reimarus, 
in  a  work  vhich  was  submitted  to  Lessing  in  manu¬ 
script  form,  and  by  him  published,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
mente  eines  few  years  after  the  author’s  death,  under  the  title  of  the 
Tinge-  ^  ‘  Papers  of  an  Anonymous  Wolfenbutteler/  Reimarus 

could  perceive  in  the  origin  of  Christianity  nothing  but 
the  worldly  aims  of  its  Founder,  and  the  false  pretensions  of  his 
disciples.  This  was  too  much,  not  only  for  the  orthodox,  but  for 
the  Liberal  party.  Among  the  former  the  disputatious  Melchior 
Goeze  of  Hamburg,  and  among  the  latter  Semler  and  many  others 
rose  up  and  challenged  these  views. 

All  of  them  made  Lessing  responsible  for  the  opinions  set  forth, 
and  he  had  to  answer  all  attacks.  He  had  been  prepared  for  this, 
and  knew  what  a  storm  he  was  conjuring  up.  But  the  frame  of 
mind  in  which  he  had  published  those  first  cutting  fragments  was 
very  different  from  that  in  which  he  now  set  about  undertaking  the 
defence  of  the  anonymous  Wolfenbutteler.  Then,  peace  and  happi¬ 
ness  had  just  begun  to  dawn  for  him.  Alone,  and  often  in  struggle 
with  want  and  debts,  he  had  lived  on  till  his  forty-eighth  year ;  at 
length  fortune  seemed  to  smile  upon  him,  for  his  outward  circum¬ 
stances  had  improved,  and  a  clear-headed  and  energetic  woman, 
Eva  Konig,  the  widow  of  a  Hamburg  friend,  had  become  his  wife 
in  October,  1776.  She  had  the  best  influence  upon  him,  and  made 
him  quieter,  steadier,  and  less  hasty.  But  on  Christmas  Eve,  1777, 
Death  of  she  gave  birth  to  a  son,  who  died  in  twenty-four  hours, 
Lessing’s  and  on  the  10th  of  January,  17  78,  she  died  herself. 
wife-  Lessing  wrote  heart-rending  letters,  letters  breathing 
the  bitter  misanthropic  mockery  of  his  Tellheim  or  his  Orsina,  letters 
full  of  unfathomable  misery,  and  such  as  no  one  had  ever  before 
written,  except  Frederick  the  Great  in  his  most  desponding 
moments.  ‘  My  wife  is  dead,’  he  writes,  ‘  so  this  experience,  too,  I 
have  now  made.  I  am  tha.nkful  there  cannot  be  still  reserved  to 
me  many  such  experiences,  and  am  quite  easy.’ 

It  was  in  this  frame  of  mind  that  Lessing  had  to  begin  to  answer 
the  polemics  against  the  anonymous  author  and  his  publisher. 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


75 


He  wrote  his  ‘Testament  of  John/  his  ‘Duplik/  his  ‘Parables/ 

his  ‘Axiomata/  and  that  whole  series  of  scathing  Lessing’s 

polemics  to  which  he  gave  the  title  of  ‘Anti-Goeze/  theological 
He  applied  all  his  marvellous  powers  of  language  controversy, 

and  keen  argument  to  the  task  before  him  ;  meta¬ 

phors  and  similes  suggested  themselves  in  abundance  at  his  call, 
and  yet  he  appeals  less  to  the  imagination  than  to  the  His  ‘  Anti¬ 
understanding.  His  quick  transitions  of  thought  keep  G-oeze.’ 
us  continually  on  the  alert ;  we  seem  to  be  listening  to  a  dis¬ 
cussion  carried  on  in  flying  haste,  and  where  the  objections  of  the 
opponent  are  left  to  our  conjecture.  The  dramatic  vivacity  of  the 
Lutheran  pamphlets  is  revived  here  in  the  hands  of  a  true  dramatist. 
Now  Lessing  adopts  the  form  of  the  dialogue,  now  of  the  epistle. 
At  one  time  he  propounds  a  parable,  at  another  he  brings  forward 
a  chain  of  theses ;  here  we  have  calm  evidence  and  statements, 
there  a  storm  of  query  and  invective.  He  has  a  special  style  for 
every  separate  opponent.  Goeze  gets  the  hardest  blows,  being 
stamped  as  a  disloyal  persecutor  and  bigot,  an  intolerant  hypo¬ 
crite  and  slanderer.  Every  weak  point  which  he  betrays  Lessing 
at  once  spies  out  with  eagle  eye,  and  mercilessly  assails.  But  his 
object  is  rather  defence  than  attack,  and  he  triumphantly  answers 
the  onslaught  made  upon  him  for  publishing  the  ‘  Fragments/  Free 
enquiry,  he  says,  is  the  right  of  all  Protestants.  Luther’s  spirit 
demands  that  no  man  should  be  hindered  in  seeking  after  truth 
according  to  his  lights,  for  the  final  purpose  of  Christianity  is 
not  that  we  should  be  saved  in  any  manner,  but  that  we  should 
be  saved  through  the  truth  illumining  our  souls.  And  the  letter 
is  not  the  spirit,  the  Bible  is  not  religion ;  consequently  attacks  on 
the  Bible  are  not  necessarily  attacks  on  religion. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  Lessing  by  no  means  agreed  with  all  the 

opinions  set  forth  in  the  ‘Fragments/  He  wished  to  distinguish 

the  religion  of  existing  Christian  Churches  from  the  religion  of 

Jesus,  the  ‘  divine  friend  of  man/  the  religion  which  Lessing’s 

his  beloved  disciple  summed  up  in  the  words — ‘  Little  real 

children,  love  one  another.’  He  was  prepared  to  follow  religious 

views. 

Semler’s  example,  and  vigorously  promote  the  study 

of  the  Gospels  as  monuments  of  literary  history,  and,  by  a 


76 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


more  intimate  acquaintance  with  primitive  Christianity,  to  bring 
about  that  emancipation  from  a  slavish  adherence  to  the  letter, 
which  he  saw  to  be  so  necessary.  He  would  have  treated  Chris¬ 
tianity  as  Winckelmann  had  treated  Greek  art,  and  would  have 
shown  how  different  climates  produced  different  wants  and  satis¬ 
factions,  different  manners  and  customs,  different  ethics  and  dif¬ 
ferent  religions.  He  considered  religions  as  the  products  of  a 
necessary  but  purely  human  development,  and  said  that  their  chief 
importance  lay  in  the  moral  effect  they  produced.  This  was  why  he 
regarded  as  proof  against  any  refutation  the  pious  feeling  which  is 
happy  in  its  faith,  and  why  he  so  earnestly  longed  for  a  new  and 
permanent  Gospel,  which  should  recommend  virtue  for  its  own  sake, 
and  not  for  the  sake  of  a  future  happiness.  The  noblest  flower  of 
virtue  seemed  to  him  to  be  that  love  which  unites  men  and  lifts 
them  above  the  earthly  limits  of  nationalities,  states,  and  religions. 

Lessing  did  not  find  time  to  set  forth  all  his  thoughts  on  religious 
subjects.  His  controversy  with  Goeze  was  only  a  preliminary 
skirmish ;  the  real  battle  was  to  come.  He  was  not  a  man  who 
would  build  up  a  system  in  too  great  haste.  His  strength  lay 
in  discriminating,  examining,  refuting;  in  one  word,  in  criticism. 
But  above  the  particulars  which  he  subjected  to  a  strict  in- 
Lessing’s  vestigation,  his  mind  rose  in  anticipation  to  a  view 
*  Ernst  und  of  the  whole.  He  had  formed  for  himself  concep¬ 
tions  of  God,  the  world,  and  the  human  soul,  in 
accordance  with  those  of  Leibniz  and  not  altogether 
unlike  the  views  held  by  Spinoza.  He  gave  the 
frankest  utterance  to  what  he  deemed  essentials  in  his 
‘Freemason  dialogues'  of  1778  (he  had  joined  the  order 
in  Hamburg),  and  he  set  forth  the  same  convictions 
schlechts,’  more  covertly,  not  in  his  own  name,  but  as  an  interpre¬ 
tation  of  Christian  dogmas,  in  his  ‘  Education  of  the 
Human  Race,’  published  in  1780.  These  convictions  form  a  quiet 
background  to  the  stormy  activity  of  his  controversial  writings. 

Lessing’s  most  violent  controversy  took  place  in  1778.  Then 
silence  was  suddenly  imposed  on  him  by  a  command  from  Bruns¬ 
wick,  and  the  right  of  free  publication  was  withdrawn  from  him. 
He  had  to  lay  down  the  weapons  of  theological  warfare,  and 


Falk, 

Gesprache 
fur  Frei- 
maurer,’ 
1778,  and 
‘  Erziehung 
des  Mens- 
chenge- 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


77 


resorted  instead  to  his  old  poetical  weapons,  which  were  still  untar¬ 
nished  and  had  never  been  wielded  in  a  nobler  cause,  for  the 
question  was  not  the  triumph  of  one  opinion  over  another,  but  the 
victory  of  tolerance  over  intolerance. 

In  this  very  year,  1778,  Voltaire  had  died,  and  Lessing  had 
written  this  epitaph  on  him  : 

‘  Here  lielh  one,  who,  if  ye  truly  prate, 

Ye  pious  folk,  here  lieth  all  too  late. 

Forgive  his  Henriade,  O  God  of  mercies, 

Forgive  his  tragedies  and  little  verses; 

I  will  not  ask  forgiveness  for  the  rest 

Of  what  he  wrote,  for  that  was  much  the  best.’ 


In  the  year  1762  Voltaire  had  published  extracts  from  the  Anti- 
Christian  Testament  of  Pastor  Meslier,  and  in  1763  had  written 
his  ‘  Traite  de  la  Tolerance/  Lessing  published  the  ‘Fragments  by 
an  Anonymous  Wolfenbiitteler ’  from  1774  to  1777,  ‘Nathan 
and  in  1779  wrote  ‘  Nathan  the  Wise/  In  this  drama  der  Weise/ 
he  returned  to  a  subject  which  had  suggested  itself  to  1779. 
him  at  the  time  of  his  intercourse  with  Voltaire,  and  for  which 
Voltaire  had  even  furnished  a  few  ideas.  In  his  comedy  of  ‘  The 
Jews/  Lessing  himself  had  taken  a  few  features  from  the  same  story, 
which  in  its  main  outlines  was  derived  from  Boccaccio,  the  great  story¬ 
teller  of  the  middle  ages.  The  following  is  a  short  outline  of  the  story. 

Sultan  Saladin  is  in  need  of  money.  He  sends  for  a  rich  Jew, 
and,  in  order  to  entrap  him,  puts  the  question  to  The  story 
him,  which  of  the  three  religions  he  holds  to  be  of  the  Three 
the  true  one — the  Jewish,  the  Mohammedan,  or  the  Kings. 
Christian.  The  Jew,  who  is  prudent  as  well  as  rich,  asks  leave  to 
relate  a  story,  and  tells  of  a  ring  which  was  in  the  possession  of  a 
noble  family,  and  was  handed  down  from  father  to  son,  always 
exalting  the  son  who  had  it  above  the  other  sons;  this  ring  came  at 
last  into  the  hands  of  a  father  who  had  three  sons,  all  of  whom  he 
loved  equally  well,  so  that  he  did  not  wish  one  to  be  better  off  than 
the  other  two.  He  therefore  had  two  other  rings  made,  which  he 
himself  could  hardly  distinguish  from  the  original  one,  and  gave  a 
ring  to  each  of  his  sons.  After  his  death  they  all  raised  the  same 
claims,  which  no  one  could  settle,  since  no  one  could  find  out  the 
true  ring.  The  Jew  applies  the  story  to  the  case  of  the  three 


7« 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great . 


[Ch  XI. 


different  religions ;  Saladin  recognises  the  truth  of  the  parable, 
acknowledges  his  need,  receives  what  he  wants,  and  treats  the  Jew 
henceforth  as  his  friend. 

This  is  a  short  outline  of  Boccaccio’s  story,  and  a  similar  story 
was  told  of  a  Spanish  king  of  the  eleventh  century.  In  Spain  all 
three  religions  were  represented,  and  flourished  peacefully  side  by 
side.  The  Greek  culture  which  had  been  revived  there  by  the 
Arabs  had  dissipated  many  of  the  religious  prejudices  which  sepa¬ 
rate  men.  The  story  of  the  three  rings  became  in  Spain  a 
customary  parabolic  expression  of  tolerant  views.  The  story 
spread  over  Europe,  and  the  bigots  gave  it  a  different  termina¬ 
tion,  according  to  which  the  true  heir  is  found  out  by  reason  of  the 
true  ring  working  miracles.  Sometimes  the  rings  are  omitted,  and 
we  have  only  a  story  of  three  brothers.  In  the  seventeenth  cen¬ 
tury  the  brothers  went  among  Lutherans  by  the  names  of  Peter, 
Martin,  and  John,  and  Martin  was  of  course  the  true  heir.  In 
the  eighteenth  century  Swift  availed  himself  of  the  story  in  his 
‘Tale  of  a  Tub’  in  order  to  mock  at  all  three  sects.  The  poet 
Gellert  followed  the  same  idea  in  his  story  of  the  hat,  which  was 
always  assuming  new  shapes,  and  yet  always  turned  out  to  be 
the  same  old  hat ;  he  was  not  scoffing  at  religion,  however,  but 
at  philosophy  with  its  varying  systems. 

From  this  allegory  of  the  three  rings,  Lessing  now,  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  set  himself  to  draw  the  same  moral  of  toleration 
as  had  already  been  drawn  in  the  eleventh.  But  he  availed  himself 
of  the  old  tale  not  merely  as  a  weapon  against  intolerance,  but  also 
in  order  to  inculcate  the  gospel  of  love.  He  attributes  a  miraculous 
power  to'  the  ring,  and  makes  the  father  declare  that  that  power  lies 
in  the  gift  which  the  ring  has  of  bringing  favour  with  God  and  man 
to  him  who  wears  it  in  this  assurance;  and  the  judge  gives  the  fol¬ 
lowing  counsel  to  the  three  brothers  who  crave  justice  at  his  hands: 
‘Test  the  power  of  your  rival  rings  by  emulating  one  another  in 
gentleness,  concord,  benevolence,  and  zeal  in  the  service  of  God.' 

The  plot  But  Boccaccio  only  furnished  Lessing  with  a  few 
of  ‘  Nathan  scenes,  whereas  he  required  a  plot  of  five  acts,  and,  if 
der  Weise.  p0SSibie>  a  crisis  in  which  the  character  of  the  Jew 
should  be  put  to  the  test  and  come  out  triumphant.  Lessing’s  Jew 


Ch.  XI.] 


Lessing. 


79 


was  to  be  a  wise  and  good  Jew,  like  Moses  Mendelssohn.  By  way 
of  making  Nathan  yet  more  interesting,  Lessing  represents  him  as  a 
much  persecuted  man  of  sorrows,  whose  wife  and  seven  sons  have 
been  all  slain  in  one  day  by  the  Christians.  Nevertheless,  Nathan 
conforms  to  the  hardest  of  Christian  precepts  :  he  loves  his  enemies 
and  adopts  a  Christian  child  as  his  own,  and  Recha,  this  adopted 
daughter,  turns  out  to  be  the  Sultan's  niece  and  the  sister  of  a 
Knight-Templar.  Christians  and  Mohammedans  are  thus  united 
by  a  family  tie,  as  had  already  been  described  by  Wolfram  von 
Eschenbach  in  his  ‘ParzivaL  and  ‘  Willehalm,’  and  a  Jew  is  received 
into  their  circle,  not  by  a  dispensation  of  nature,  but  owing  to  the 
power  of  his  noble  character. 

In  this  play,  as  in  ‘  Emilia,’  the  action  issues  naturally  from  the 
characters,  which  are  life-like,  individual  figures,  such  as  Lessing 
knew  well  how  to  draw  from  his  faithful  observation  of  human 
nature  in  himself  and  in  those  around  him.  Nathan  is  character 
a  merchant  and  philosopher  like  Moses  Mendelssohn  ;  of 

he  is  a  man  who  has  been  sanctified  by  sorrow  and  Nathan, 

self-denial,  an  ideal  character,  who  calls  forth  the  highest  admira¬ 
tion,  and  yet  is  never  idealised  into  vagueness,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
leaves  on  the  mind  the  impression  of  a  portrait.  Widely-travelled 
and  wise,  rich  and  unselfish,  he  is  invaluable  as  a  guide,  philosopher, 
and  friend.  In  his  attitude  towards  the  great  ones  of  this  world  he 
is  fearless  though  cautious,  and  in  dealing  with  noble  natures,  he  has 
learnt  that  it  is  the  best  policy  to  appeal  to  the  noblest  moral  feelings. 
He  extends  his  tolerance  to  all  except  the  vicious.  He  oth^r 

has  educated  his  adopted  daughter  Recha  to  be  simple  characters 

and  sincere,  and  has  fortified  with  his  enlightened  of  the  Play* 
teaching  the  natural  purity  of  her  heart.  Child-like  in  her  innocence, 
she  knows  nothing  of  love,  and  the  appeals  of  a  lover  awake  no 
echo  in  her  heart ;  all  the  affection  of  her  enthusiastic  nature  is 
centred  on  Nathan,  whom  she  believes  to  be  her  real  father.  Then 
while  Nathan  is  away  there  comes  a  moment  of  peril,  and  she  is 
saved  by  the  Templar.  She  is  so  infatuated  that  she  regards  her 
deliverer  as  an  angel,  until  Nathan  returns  and  undeceives  her. 
The  Templar  is  an  upright  man,  and  fair-minded,  except  for  a 
certain  arrogance  towards  the  Jew,  which,  however,  vanishes  as 


8o 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great . 


[Ch.  XI. 


soon  as  he  comes  to  know  him.  He  is  carried  away  by  his  youth¬ 
ful  passion  to  take  a  thoughtless  step,  which  imperils  Nathan  and 
plunges  himself  in  the  bitterest  remorse.  Saladin  is  a  hearty, 
impulsive  man,  as  soldiers  and  men  of  action  often  are ;  he  is  easily 
roused  and  as  easily  forgets.  He  is  enthusiastic  in  his  devotion 
to  his  brother  and  sister,  and  in  practical  affairs,  for  which  he  has 
no  talent,  he  lets  himself  be  guided  by  his  clear-minded  and  prudent 
sister,  as  Lessing  probably  was  guided  by  his  wife.  But  her  influence 
is  not  always  for  good,  and  the  line  of  conduct  which  she  suggests 
should  be  adopted  towards  the  Jew,  turns  out  to  her  own  and  to 
Saladin’s  discredit.  Nathan’s  friend  the  Dervish,  ‘  the  wild,  good, 
noble  man/  the  beggar  whom  Nathan  declares  to  be  the  true  king, 
has  put  himself  as  the  Sultan’s  treasurer  into  a  very  false  position, 
from  which  he  finally  escapes  by  simply  running  away  ;  this  creation 
of  Lessing’s  humour  owed  its  origin  to  a  Jewish  mathematician  of 
Mendelssohn’s  circle.  The  groom,  who  had  long  ago  brought  the 
little  Christian  child  to  Nathan,  finds  himself  in  a  similar  false 
position ;  he  has  afterwards  to  prove  his  simple  piety  in  the  service 
of  an  unscrupulous,  but  happily  also  stupid  Church  dignitary. 
He,  like  the  rest,  becomes  Nathan’s  friend,  and  exclaims,  in  ad¬ 
miration  of  him  :  ‘By  God,  you  are  a  Christian;  there  never  was  a 
better  Christian  than  you.’ 

All  these  characters  share  more  or  less  consciously  in  the 
views  which  Nathan,  as  the  wisest  among  them,  is  the  best  able 
to  put  into  words.  These  views,  Lessing  tells  us,  had  been  his 
own  from  his  earliest  years,  or,  to  speak  more  accurately,  since 

Theological  t^ie  ^me  ^rst  sojourn  in  Berlin.  The  lead- 

views  in  ing  characters  of  the  play  are  all  opposed  to  the 
‘Nathan,  pretensions  of  positive  religion  ;  they  are  all  of 
one  mind  in  seeking  beyond  the  differences  of  creed  and  nation¬ 
ality  the  common  basis  of  humanity,  and  in  considering  good 
action  to  be  man’s  aim  in  life ;  but  they  also  all  hold  fast  to 
Theism,  to  a  general  belief  in  God,  and  in  His  government  of  the 
world,  though  not  by  means  of  supernatural  interference.  This 
faith  is  their  guiding  principle.  They  all,  with  the  exception  of  the 
one  hero,  fall  away  once,  either  from  noble  or  ignoble  motives, 
from  the  way  which  they  consider  right,  and  the  chief  complica- 


f 


Ch.  xi.]  Lessing.  81 

tions  in  the  play  arise  from  these  aberrations.  As  a  contrast  to 
these  characters,  we  have  the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  and  Recha’s 
nurse  Daja ;  these  pretend  to  know  the  only  true  way  to  God,  and 
the  Patriarch,  a  caricature  of  Melchior  Goeze,  is  quite  prepared  to 
drive  the  whole  world  by  fire  and  sword  into  conformity  with  his 
own  views. 

In  ‘Nathan/  differing  nationalities  and  creeds  are  united  by 
bonds  of  harmony  and  peace,  a  dream  which  had  floated  before 
Lessing’s  eyes  as  a  Free-mason.  But  the  spirit  of  peace  which 
breathes  throughout  this  play  is  also  a  cheerful  spirit.  Cheerful 
characters  and  incidents  alternate,  as  in  ‘  Minna  von  Barnhelm,’ 
with  serious  and  affecting  ones,  and  this  mingling  of  light  and  shade 
brings  the  play  down  to  the  level  of  real  life,  instead  of  keeping 
it  in  a  purely  ideal  region  of  noble  sentiment  and  generous 
deeds. 

In  one  of  his  pamphlets  against  Goeze,  Lessing  casts  a  retro¬ 
spective  glance  on  his  stormy  period  of  impetuous  ardour,  and 
says  he  feels  himself  now  driven  by  softer  winds  towards  the 
harbour  where  he  hopes  to  land  as  happily  as  his  opponent. 
Three  years  after  he  had  written  this,  two  years  after  he  had  pub¬ 
lished  ‘Nathan/  and  in  the  sentiments  of  the  wise  Jew  had  given  a 
reflection  of* his  own  convictions,  Lessing  died,  on  the  Lessing 
15th  of  February,  1781.  His  step-daughter,  Malchen  dies>  1781- 
Konig  (the  original,  as  we  may  suppose,  of  Nathan’s  Recha), 
attended  him  faithfully  on  his  death-bed. 

Lessing  was  a  true  and  resolute  man  in  an  effeminate  age.  He 
was  capable  of  tender  feelings  himself,  and  of  love  and  His 
sympathy  for  others,  but  he  had  no  desire  to  let  the  character, 
world  look  into  his  heart.  Not  sentiment,  nor  subtle  reasoning, 
but  action  seemed  to  him  to  be  the  true  end  of  man  ;  virtuous 
action  was  to  him  the  only  touchstone  of  true  religion,  and  the 
mature  man,  who  does  his  duty  without  regard  to  reward  or  dis¬ 
tinction,  was  his  moral  ideal.  He  considered  action  to  be  the 
highest  theme  of  poetry,  and  the  drama,  which  represents  action 
most  graphically,  the  highest  form  of  poetry. 

When  we  reflect  on  his  impetuous  activity,  his  restlessness,  his 
delight  in  animated  conversation,  his  readiness  to  engage  in  con- 

VOL.  11. 


G 


82 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


troversy,  his  Protestant  zeal  for  truth,  and  then  remember  that  he 
was  also  a  classical  scholar,  a  patriot,  an  enemy  of  tyrants,  who 
refused  patronage  and  worked  on  in  the  present,  careless  of  the 
future, — it  seems  to  us  as  though  Ulrich  von  Idutten  had  appeared 
again  in  him,  only  under  a  more  gentle  and  agreeable  aspect. 


Herder  and  Goethe. 

In  May,  1773,  six  years  after  the  publication  of  ‘Minna  von 
Barnhelm,’  a  small,  badly  printed,  anonymous  book 
‘Vondeut-  appearecj  entitled  ‘  On  German  style  and  art,  a  few 

undEunst’  fly-sheets.’  It  contained  -essays  by  three  different 
1773.  writers;  Justus  Moser,  counsel  to  the  governing  body 

Moser,  Qf  tpe  cathedral  foundation  of  Osnabriick,  contributed 
Herder  and  ....  .  , 

Goethe  a  highly  original  sketch  of  German  history,  m  which 

he  upheld  the  liberty  of  the  ancient  Germans  as  a 
vanished  ideal ;  Johann  Gottfried  Herder,  counsel  of  the  Consistory 
of  Biickeburg,  celebrated  the  merits  of  popular  song,  advocated  a 
collection  of  the  German  ‘  Volkslieder,’  extolled  the  greatness  of 
Shakspeare  and  prophesied  the  advent  of  a  German  Shakspeare ; 
Johann  Wolfgang  Goethe,  a  lawyer  at  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  who 
was  destined  to  be  the  long-expected  German  Shakspeare,  and 
whose  name  was  then  in  everyone’s  mouth  as  the  author  of  ‘  Gotz  von 
Berlichingen,’  gave  utterance  in  the  same  volume  to  his  delight  with 
the  Strassburg  Cathedral,  and  attacked  the  Abbe  Laugier,  who  would 
recognise  nothing  but  ancient  columns  as  good  architecture.  Goethe 
]  raised  the  Gothic  style  as  the  national  German  style  of  architecture, 
and  assi  rted  that  art,  to  be  true,  must  be  characteristic.  Moser 
was  at  this  time  fifty-three  years  old,  Herder  twenty-nine,  and  Goethe 
twenty-four.  Herder  and  Goethe  had  made  each  other’s  acquaint¬ 
ance  in  the  autumn  of  1770,  at  Strassburg.  Moser’s  essay  was  taken 

«r 

from  the  preface  to  his  ‘  History  of  Osnabriick,’  and  was  probably 
incorporated  at  Herder’s  instigation  in  these  ‘  Fly-Sheets.’ 

Moser  was  a  man  of  the  older  generation,  a  lawyer  and  an 
official,  who  had  long  before  evinced  a  sympathy  with  the  patriotic 
tendencies  of  German  liteiature.  The  two  younger  authors,  who 
took  part  with  him  in  this  publication,  were  not  fanatical  partisans 
of  the  movement  in  favour  of  restoring  the  old  German  style  of 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe. 


83 


writing,  and  of  keeping  up  the  popular  art  of  by-gone  times ; 
nevertheless  they  did  for  a  while  lend  it  their  strong  support,  and  by 
doing  so  conclusively  showed  that  the  strong  current  of  national 
feeling,  which  had  set  in  after  the  Seven  Years’  War,  still  retained 
its  force.  These  patriotic  tendencies  had  continued  to  go  hand  in 
hand  with  hostility  to  France  and  with  a  friendly 
attitude  towards  England.  They  now  waxed  stronger  Literary 
and  more  impetuous,  till  they  acquired  the  character  preiuded 
not  of  a  mere  reforming  but  of  a  revolutionary  force,  by  the 
intensifying  and  exaggerating  the  spirit  which  had 
characterised  Klopstock  and  Lessing,  and  carrying  ‘Gotz’ 

-  along  with  it  all  young  and  enthusiastic  minds. 

National  and  popular  in  its  tendencies,  this  great  movement  was 
in  fact  a  revulsion  from  the  spirit  of  Voltaire  to  that  of  Rousseau, 
from  the  artificiality  of  society  to  the  simplicity  of  nature,  from 
doubt  and  rationalism  to  feeling  and  faith,  from  a  priori 
notions  to  history,  from  hard  and  fast  aesthetic  rules  to  the  freedom 
of  genius.  Goethe's  ‘  Gotz  '  was  the  first  revolutionary  symptom 
which  really  attracted  much  attention,  but  the  ‘  Fly-sheets  on 
German  style  and  art '  preceded  the  publication  of  ‘  Gotz,'  as  a  kind 
of  programme  or  manifesto. 

Moser  was  born  in  1720,  at  Osnabriick,  in  the  very  heart  of  old 
Saxony;  he  lived  there  till  1794  and  was  much  Moser’s 
esteemed.  He  had  no  interest  in  questions  of  inter-  life  and 
national  politics,  for  in  the  district  of  North  Germany  character, 
where  his  home  lay,  there  were  no  large  cities  where  such  questions 
would  be  discussed.  But  the  neighbourhood  offered  him  great 
facilities  for  making  himself  acquainted  with  the  every-day  life  of  the 
peasants,  with  its  narrow  interests  and  trivial  details.  Consequently  it 
was  the  social  and  economic  differences,  the  traditional  laws  and 
customs  that  were  brought  within  the  range  of  his  observation  and 
occupied  his  attention,  much  more  than  the  natural  equality  and 
rights  of  man.  He  devoted  himself  entirely  to  the  study  of  his 
immediate  surroundings,  and  adopted  as  his  literary  model  the 
essays  on  manners  in  the  moralizing  weekly  papers.  He  apparently 
wished  to  write  only  for  his  countrymen,  to  report  their  experience, 
and  to  teach  them;  but  he  did  this  in  such  a  thorough  and  in- 


G  2 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great . 


[Ch.  XI. 


84 


teresting  manner,  and  with  so  much  humour  and  irony,  and, 
following  in  the  steps  of  Montesquieu  and  Voltaire,  he  adopted 
such  a  high  historical  standard,  that  his  small  essays,  collected  in 
His  ‘Patrio-  1 7 74  under  the  title  of  ‘Patriotic  Fantasies,’  furnish 
tische  Phan-  a  perfect  treasure  of  observation,  wit,  and  reflection, 
tasien,  1774.  practical,  historical,  and  theoretical  wisdom.  In 
these  essays  he  succeeded  in  generalizing  and,  as  it  were,  idealizing 
His  ‘  o«na  *he  ^oca^  interests  in  his  immediate  neighbourhood ; 
briickische  and  in  the  same  manner  his  ‘  History  of  Osnabriick,’ 
Geschichte,’  which  began  to  appear  in  1768,  opened  out  by  its 

1768 

bold  conjectures  a  wide  outlook  into  early  German 
times,  and  originated  views  of  German  constitutional  history,  whose 
influence  lasted  on  far  into  our  own  century.  Moser’s  name  is 
mentioned  with  equal  respect  by  German  lawyers,  historians,  and 
His  Con-  political  economists.  But  his  conservative  attitude,  his 
servatism.  respect  for  existing  institutions,  and  his  strong  vener¬ 
ation  of  the  past  put  him  in  opposition  to  the  general  tendencies  of 
the  eighteenth  century.  He  was  an  enemy  of  centralising  and 
levelling  tendencies,  of  enlightened  despotism  with  its  meddlesome 
bureaucracy.  He  was  also  incidentally  an  opponent  of  philanthropic 
sentiment,  and  delighted  to  utter  paradoxical  praises  of  club-law  and 
serfdom.  On  the  other  hand  he  demanded  the  institution  of  trial 
by  jury,  and  foretold  the  advent  of  national  armaments.  England, 
which  he  knew  from  direct  experience,  seemed  to  him  in  many 
respects  a  model  worthy  to  be  copied.  He  looked  up  to  the 
English  aristocracy  with  the  same  admiration  with  which  Lessing 
and  Herder  looked  up  to  Shakspeare,  and  he  sang  the  praises  of 
early  German  times  with  as  much  enthusiasm  as  Klopstock. 

Herder,  too,  was  in  opposition  to  the  spirit  of  his  age.  He  was 
Herder,  inclined  to  look  at  things  historically,  and  the  sum  and 

b.  1744.  substance  of  all  his  speculation  and  writing  was,  in  a 

word,  the  history  of  the  human  spirit.  He  was  the  son  of  a 
schoolmaster,  and  was  born  on  August  25,  1744  at  Mohrungen  in 
East  Prussia,  in  the  dominions  of  Frederick  the  Great.  Taught 
during  his  earlier  years  by  a  pedant,  then  mentally  enslaved  by  a 
priest,  it  was  not  till  he  went  to  the  University  that  he  won  intellectual 
freedom.  Of  a  very  excitable  temperament,  he  early  nursed 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe. 


85 


ambitious  dreams  ;  as  a  member  of  the  clerical  profession,  he  looked 
forward  to  influencing  the  great  and  raising  the  common  people.  As 
a  student  in  Konigsberg,  he  soon  showed  a  talent  for  teaching  and  a 
decided  tendency  to  intellectual  independence.  Th^  philosopher 
Kant  opened  to  him  the  wealth  of  his  own  knowledge,  and  led  him 
to  suspect  the  soundness  of  the  fashionable  ‘  enlight-  Hamann’s 
ened  ’  philosophy.  But  more  than  any  other,  Hamann  influence 
attracted  him  into  his  strange  sphere  of  thought.  on 
Johann  Georg  Hamann,  the  ‘  Magus  of  the  North/  as  he  was  called, 
was  a  fantastically  original  man,  and  a  writer  of  mystical  works  ;  he 
was  a  great  reader,  had  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Greek  writers 
and  of  Shakspeare,  and  introduced  Herder  to  the  study  of  the  latter. 
He  was  born  in  1730,  and  after  many  wanderings  at  length  found 
rest  in  his  native  town  of  Konigsberg.  From  1759,  he  published 
a  succession  of  fragmentary  writings,  full  of  allusions  and  with 
strange  titles,  ‘  Sibylline  leaves  ’  people  called  them.  They  were  dis¬ 
connected  papers,  now  oracular,  now  humorous,  never  fully  worked 
out  or  deductively  proving  anything,  but  in  their  merely  aphoristic 
and  ardent  style  rather  suggestive  than  convincing.  An  enemy  of 
mere  analysis  and  abstraction,  he  sought  to  understand  man  and 
his  faculties  as  a  whole.  Nature,  he  said,  works  upon  us  through 
the  senses  and  the  passions,  which  in  turn  can  neither  appreciate  nor 
utter  themselves  in  anything  but  images  ;  therefore  poetry  is  the 
original  language  of  the  human  race.  The  passions  are  the  driving 
force  of  human  nature  and  the  life  of  all  thought  and  imagination. 

Hamann  adopted  a  hostile  attitude  towards  the  theology  and 

philosophy  of  the  so-called  ‘ Illuminati’  or  rationalists. 

.  Hamann  s 

During  a  sojourn  in  London,  in  a  time  of  great  hostility  to 
inward  and  outward  difficulty,  he  began  to  read  the 
the  Bible,  and  this  made  a  turning-point  in  his  life  ; 
orthodoxy  gained  a  new  prophet,  who  everywhere 
defended  faith  against  reason,  and  asserted  the  insufficiency  of 
the  latter  for  the  recognition  of  the  deepest  truths.  And  as 
on  the  one  hand  he  mistrusted  logical  argument,  so  on  the 
other  he  attacked  aesthetic  rules;  as  he  championed  revelation, 
so  he  also  did  homage  to  unfettered  genius  in  poet  and  artist. 
Whereas  the  Illuminati  strove  to  attain  an  ordered  system  of 


86  The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great.  [ch.  XI. 

knowledge,  he  revelled  in  disconnected  assertions.  Whereas  they 
tried  to  shut  up  everything  in  sweeping  general  formulae,  he  laid 
stress  on  the  radical  unlikeness  of  everything  to  everything  else. 
While  they  sought  to  be  clear  and  reasonable  in  their  literary  style, 
Hamann  scorned  to  be  merely  logical  in  what  he  wrote,  and 
preferred  exceptions  to  rules,  imagination  to  understanding,  poetry 
to  prose,  the  particular  to  the  general.  Though  any  systematic 
progress  in  knowledge  would  be  impossible  on  these  lines,  yet 
Hamann’s  teaching  might  render  it  easier  for  a  true  poet  of  original 
talent  and  liberal  culture  to  break  from  the  fetters  of  finite 
thought,  might  strengthen  his  faith  in  his  own  powers,  and  quicken 
in  him  the  impulse  to  poetic  creation.  The  seeds  of  Hamann’s 
teaching  germinated  in  Herder,  and  through  him  bore  fruit  for 
Goethe. 

Warmly  recommended  by  Hamann,  Herder,  in  November, 
Herder  at  T7^4>  Konigsberg  for  Riga,  where  he  soon  en- 
Higa,  chanted  everyone  as  a  teacher  and  preacher;  but 
1764-68.  this  did  not  suit  him  as  a  permanence,  and  after  four 
years  of  work  he  suddenly  gave  up  his  office.  He  was  not  yet 
twenty-five,  and  he  wished  to  see  the  world.  A  journey  to  France 
confirmed  him  in  his  aversion  to  the  French.  He  was  next  to  go 
with  a  German  prince  to  Italy;  but  on  his  way  thither  he  engaged 
himself  to  a  lady  in  Darmstadt,  and  during  his  stay  in  Strassburg 
he  received  a  call  to  Btickeburg,  which  he  accepted.  For  five 
years,  from  1771  to  1776,  he  remained  chained  to  this  little 
Westphalian  town,  where  in  1773  he  made  a  home  for  himself 
and  his  bride. 

Thomas  Abbt,  author  of  the  writings  entitled,  ‘  Of  death  for  one’s 
Herder  at  country,’  and  ‘  Of  Merit/  had  been  Privy  Councillor 
Btickeburg,  and  friend  of  Count  Wilhelm  of  Lippe-Schaumburg, 
1771-76.  anq  hac[  died  jn  Btickeburg  at  an  early  age,  in  1766. 
Herder,  who  had  a  great  respect  for  him,  had  praised  his  popular 
philosophy  and  his  historical  gifts  in  one  of  his  works.  This  directed 
Count  Wilhelm’s  attention  to  him,  and  he  hoped  to  find  in  him  one 
who  would  make  up  to  him  for  the  loss  of  Thomas  Abbt.  But 
the  two  did  not  agree  well  together  and  the  relation  between  them 
remained  a  cool  one.  The  Countess,  whose  beautiful  character 


Harder  and  Goethe. 


Ch.  xi  ] 


87 


strongly  attracted  her  clerical  friend,  died  in  the  summer  of  1776, 
and  Herder,  who  had  long  felt  himself  an  exile  at  Herder  at 
Bfickeburg,  was  called  in  the  autumn  of  the  same  year  Weimar, 
to  Weimar,  as  Court  chaplain  and  ‘  Superintendent  ’  of  1776-1803. 
the  Church  district  of  Weimar.  There  amid  varying  circumstances 
he  worked  till  1803.  In  his  sensitive  nature  there  lay  a  tendency  to 
discontent ;  he  did  not  develop  freely,  boldly,  victoriously,  but  found 
hindrances  everywhere,  which  were  in  part  due  to  his  own  character. 
He  kept  silence  from  sensitiveness  where  he  ought  to  have  spoken, 
and  then  he  suffered  greatly  from  awkward  situations,  which  he  might 
have  avoided  by  timely  frankness.  He  attacked  his  enemies 
violently,  and  was  surprised  when  they  answered  in  like  manner. 
His  literary  production  began  with  great  ardour,  but  easily  flagged, 
and  not  one  of  his  original  great  works  was  carried  to  completion. 

His  first  important  works,  which  he  published  in  Riga,  were  the 
‘  Fragmente  fiber  die  neuere  deutsche  Literatur  ’ 

(1767),  and  the  ‘Kritische  Walder’  (1769).  The 
former  were  meant  to  be  a  continuation  of  Lessing’s 
‘Literaturbriefe,’  while  the  latter  stood  in  close  con¬ 
nection  with  his  ‘  Laokoon.’  In  the  former  Herder  wrote 
like  Hamann,  in  the  latter  he  sometimes  reminds  us  of  Lessing. 
He  showed  himself  throughout  to  be  a  careful,  enthusiastic,  but  at 
the  same  time  critical  reader  of  Lessing,  for  whom  he  cherished 
all  through  life  the  greatest  reverence.  He  con-  Herder  and 
tinued  to  follow  in  Lessing’s  steps  when  he  praised  Lsssmg. 
Shakspeare,  Homer,  and  the  popular  songs.  He  showed  Lessing’s 
spirit  too  in  the  tolerance  and  wide  human  sympathies  which 
prompted  him  to  rescue  barbarian  nationalities,  so-called  dark  ages, 
despised  branches  of  poetry  and  forgotten  poets  from  oblivion, 
and  to  give  them  their  due  honour.  He  sought  to  determine  the 
boundaries  of  poetry  and  plastic  art  in  a  different  manner  from 
Lessing,  and  he  went  beyond  Lessing  in  his  endeavours  to  define 
the  difference  between  plastic  art  and  painting.  He  most  suc¬ 
cessfully  corrected  and  amended  Lessing’s  theory  of  fables  and 
epigrams,  but  he  required,  quite  in  Lessing’s  spirit,  that  lyric  poetry 
as  well  as  other  kinds  should  above  all  be  full  of  movement,  pro¬ 
gress,  and  action.  But  whereas  Lessing  was  in  the  first  place-  an 


Herder’s 
‘  Fragmente’ 
and  ‘  Kri¬ 
tische 
Walder.’ 


88 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


art-critic,  and  only  secondarily  a  historian  of  literature,  of  Herder  the 
reverse  was  true  :  he  was  first  and  foremost  a  historian  of  literature, 
and  only  incidentally  an  art-critic.  Lessing  had  recourse  to  his  rich 
literary  knowledge  in  order  to  find  rules  of  composition  and  bases 
„  ,  .  of  criticism,  but  Herder  studied  the  literature  of  all 

sympathy  nations  and  periods  for  its  own  sake,  and  with  en- 
with  foreign  thusiastic  appreciation.  He  tried  to  transport  himself 
literatures.  jnjQ  ioca]  an(j  temporary  conditions  under  which 

literary  works  had  been  produced,  and  to  adopt  the  point  of  view 
then  prevalent ;  he  sought  to  be  a  Hebrew  with  the  Hebrews,  an 
Arab  with  the  Arabs,  a  Skald  with  the  Skalds,  a  Bard  with  the 
Bards;  and  in  these  endeavours,  which  were  strengthened  by  kindred 
efforts  among  English  writers  of  the  same  time,  he  proved  himself  a 
true  pupil  of  Montesquieu  and  Winckelmann ;  their  power  of 
appreciating  the  past  lived  on  in  him,  and  bore  new  fruit  in 
literature. 

Herder  showed  his  sympathetic  appreciation  *of  foreign  poetry 
not  only  as  a  historian  of  literature,  but  also  as  a  translator.  His 
His  powers  original  poems,  which  evince  a  characteristic  tendency 
as  a  trans-  towards  didactic  narrative,  towards  allegory,  parable, 
lator.  and  sacreci  legend,  do  not  rise  to  any  great  merit,  but 
his  translations  must  be  reckoned  among  the  classical  achievements 
of  German  literature.  From  Opitz  down  to  Klopstock  and  Lessing, 
foreign  influence  exerted  its  sway  over  German  literature  ;  Herder 
founded  the  universal  culture  of  modern  Germany  on  the  remains 
of  this  foreign  dominion,  and  taught  his  successors  that  lesson 
of  open-hearted  surrender  to  the  influences  of  foreign  races  or 
of  the  remote  past,  which,  far  from  enslaving  the  learner,  really  con¬ 
firms  his  independence,  while  it  enriches  and  strengthens  his  mind. 
Herder’s  art,  as  a  translator,  was  based  on  his  deep  insight  into 
His  theory  language  and  poetry  in  general,  their  origin,  their 
of  poetry,  development,  and  their  relation  to  each  other.  In 
this  especially  he  showed  himself  to  be  a  disciple  of  Hamann. 

*  Poetry  is  the  mother-tongue  of  the  human  race,’  Hamann  had  said; 
a  whole  world  of  truth  is  indeed  locked  up  in  the  pregnant  word,  and 
Herder  was  the  man  to  make  it  yield  up  its  secret.  Poetry  is 
older  than  prose ;  poetry  lives  in  language,  lives  in  myth,  and  greets 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe. 


89 


us  at  the  threshold  of  history.  Primitive  poetry,  the  poetry  of 
Nature,  in  which  all  Nature  acts  and  speaks,  being  personified  by 
man,  who  is  all  feeling  and  passion,  poetry  such  as  'breathes  in  the 
songs  of  barbaric  peoples — this,  said  Plerder,  is  true  poetry.  The 
paradise  of  the  Scriptures  and  Rousseau’s  ideal  natural  man  meet 
us  purifLd  and  transfigured  in  Herder’s  thought.  He  too  is  con¬ 
vinced  that  a  return  to  Nature  alone  will  regain  us  our  original  and 
ideal  perfection.  In  his  ‘  Literary  Fragments/  Herder  sang  the 
praises  of  his  mother-tongue,  its  freedom  and  native  force,  and  it 
was  then  already  clear  to  him  that  the  history  of  the  human  soul 
can  only  be  deciphered  from  its  language.  His  treatise  on  the 
‘  Origin  of  Language  ’  cast  the  deepest  glances  into  primitive  times. 
His  ‘  Spirit  of  Hebraic  Poetry  ’  contained  his  ripest  His  <  Geist 
thoughts  on  the  connection  between  language  and  der  Hebrai- 
poetry.  His  general  views  as  a  historian  of  litera-  scllen:E>oesie- 
ture  were  revealed  in  his  prize  essay  on  ‘  The  causes  of  the  lowering 
of  taste  amongst  various  nations  once  distinguished  for  it.’  His 
fame  as  a  man  of  universal  sympathies,  and  as  a  versatile  translator, 
was  established  by  his  collection  of  *  Popular  Songs/  published  in 
the  years  1778  and  1779.  Later  publishers  gave  to  H.  t  stim_ 
the  work  the  affected  title  of  ‘Voices  of  the  Nations  mender 
in  Song/  It  comprised  not  only  popular  songs  Volker  in 
by  unknown  authors,  but  characteristic  poems  drawn  Liedern- 
from  the  literature  of  all  nations  alike.  All  forms  of  lyric 
poetry  were  here  represented,  and  the  only  principle  of  classifica¬ 
tion  which  Herder  allowed  of  in  this  collection  was  an  aesthetic  one, 
namely,  community  of  subject  and  sentiment.  It  is  marvellous  how 
Herder  was  able  to  appreciate  the  spirit  of  these  songs,  to  strike  the 
right  note  in  his  translations  and  retain  it  throughout,  to  reproduce 
exactly  not  only  the  feelings,  but  even  the  peculiar  metre  and  style 
of  each  poem.  The  whole  collection  is  a  series  of  gems  of  poetry, 
all  written  in  exquisite  German,  and  free  from  the  barrenness  which 
meets  us  in  most  anthologies. 


Herder’s  scientific  work  is  marked  by  the  same  breadth  of  view 
and  catholic  sympathy  as  his  poetry.  Many  of  his  thoughts  had 
been  uttered  before,  and  few  of  them  are  thoroughly  worked  out ; 
he  furnished  more  suggestions  than  results,  more  questions  than 


90 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


answers,  bold  hypotheses,  but  little  argument.  But  we  can  well  excuse 
Herder  as  a  science  the  imperfection  which  is  confined  to  details, 
philosopher  and  which  is  but  the  condition  of  rising  to  a  wide 
of  History.  vjew  Gf  the  whole.  It  may  be  true  that  Herder  looked 
at  things  only  from  a  distance,  where  the  eye  deceives  and  forms  melt 
into  one  another.  Yet  his  point  of  view  was  so  well  chosen,  that 
he  could  direct  many  people  to  their  goals,  and  indicate  the  paths 
which  are  followed,  even  in  the  present  day.  He  took  in  at  a  glance 
the  limits  and  interrelation  of  the  various  sciences ;  and  whoever 
advances  to  the  highest  problems  in  any  of  the  sciences  of  the 
human  mind,  whoever  studies  history,  or  the  science  of  language, 
mythology,  or  ethnology,  whoever  collects  popular  traditions  or 
explores  German  or  Hebrew  antiquity,  or  would  trace  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  national  peculiarities  in  all  spheres  of  life,  and  understand 
the  formative  influence  of  nature  upon  man — each  one  of  these  must 
reverence  Herder  as  a  seer  of  extraordinary  powers.  His  work 
teaches  on  all  sides  the  value  which  the  union  of  separate  depart¬ 
ments  of  science  has  for  the  progress  of  knowledge.  And  more 
than  this  ;  if  the  example  of  Lessing  proves  how  much  criticism  and 
poetic  activity  may  advance  each  other,  when  combined  in  one  man, 
the  influence  of  Herder  on  Goethe  shows  how  much  benefit  a  clear¬ 
sighted  young  poet,  thirsting  for  knowledge,  may  derive  from  an 
equally  clear-sighted  critic,  who  has  all  the  resources  of  history  and 
theory  at  his  command. 

Herder’s  mind  seems  to  have  developed  with  wonderful  consis- 
„  ,  ,  tency.  His  earliest  works  contain  all  the  later  ones  o 

mental  in  germ.  Nevertheless/ne  did  pass  through  momen- 

develop-  tous  changes  in  mental  attitude.  In  his  early  youth  he 
m8nt‘  was  an  orthodox  PietisT;  in  Riga  his  religion  took  a 
freethinking  direction ;  in  Biickeburg  he  became  a  Biblical  Christian," 
and  in  Weimar  he  returned  to  liberal  views.  When  at  the  zenith  of 
his  influence  in  Riga,  as  we  have  already  said,  he  suddenly  gave  up 
his  office  there ;  after  this,  the  new  impressions  gained  from  a  long 
sea-journey,  and  also  from  life  in  France,  among  a  foreign  people 
and  in  new  circumstances,  had  a  powerful  effect  on  the  development 
of  his  mind,  and  set  all  his  ideas  in  ferment.  In  a  diary  which  he 
kept  at  this  period,  we  find  plan  after  plan  proposed.  He  dreams 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe . 


9i 


alternately  of  distinction  as  a  teacher  or  as  a  statesman,  of  becoming 
the  Calvin  of  Riga  or  the  Lycurgus  of  Russia,  but,  in  spite  of  him¬ 
self,  the  instinct  to  be  a  man  of  learning  triumphs,  and  all  his 
schemes  revert  in  the  end  to  the  books  he  would  like  to  write. 
Energy  enough  to  divert  the  world  from  its  course,  ambition,  thirst 
for  action,  vagueness  about  details,  but  certainty  about  the  whole — 
such  ‘  storm  and  stress  ’  ( Sturm  und  Drang )  of  wit  and  intelli¬ 
gence  as  we  notice  still  seething  at  this  period  in  Herder’s  mind, 
characterized  the  German  literary  Revolution.  Herder’s  ardent  im¬ 
pulse  towards  literary  creation  had  as  yet  found  no  satisfaction,  when 
in  Strassburg  he  made  the  acquaintance  of  Goethe,  and  won  him  as 
a  pupil. 

Goethe  came  from  Frankfort,  from  the  Rhine  and  Main  district, 
where  the  popular  poetry  of  the  fourteenth  century  had  , 

blossomed.  The  Franconian  race  to  which  Hutten  birthplace, 
and  Hans  Sachs  belonged,  and  the  republican  city  Frankfort 
which  had  formerly  been  the  centre  of  the  German  on  tlie  Mam' 
book-trade,  had  the  honour  of  producing  Germany’s  greatest 
poet,  and  some  of  Goethe’s  leading  characteristics  may  have  been 
in  part  called  forth  by  the  scenes  of  his  early  life.  The  con¬ 
servative  city  in  which  the  German  emperors  were  crowned, 
was  quite  free  from  that  artificial  aesthetic  and  social  culture 
which  reigned,  for  instance,  in  Leipzig ;  it  looked  not  to  the  future 
but  to  the  past,  in  which  its  greatness  lay. 

Goethe’s  family  on  the  paternal  side  was  one  which  had  risen  rapidly 
in  the  social  scale ;  his  great-grandfather  was  a  farrier,  His 
his  grandfather  a  sailor,  his  father  a  lawyer  and  a  parentage, 
man  of  independent  means,  who  lived  for  self-culture  ;  the  great 
event  of  his  life  was  a  journey  to  Italy,  which  he  wrote  an  account 
of,  and  was  always  referring  to ;  he  was  a  collector  and  kind  of 
Maecenas,  a  man  of  many-sided  interests,  literary,  scientific,  and 
artistic,  with  a  love  of  order  and  regularity  amounting  almost 
to  pedantry,  stern,  serious,  true  to  his  convictions,  a  good  patriot, 
an  enemy  of  the  French  and  a  worshipper  of  Frederick  the  Great. 
The  mother,  on  the  other  hand,  came  of  one  of  the  leading 
families  of  the  town ;  she  was  twenty-one  years  younger  than 
her  husband,  and  had  a  singularly  easy  and  cheerful  nature, 


92 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great.  [ch.  XL 


pliant  and  averse  to  all  care ;  she  bore  with  cheerful  resignation 
a  marriage  which  had  little  of  happiness,  and  consoled  herself 
by  adorning  her  life  with  the  charms  of  imagination,  and  lavishing 
the  rich  treasures  of  her  heart  and  mind  on  her  children  and 
especially  on  the  eldest,  Wolfgang.  Restraint  and  freedom,  serious¬ 
ness  and  cheerfulness,  fear  and  love  all  helped  to  educate  the  boy ; 
they  complemented  each  other,  and  so  gave  him  breadth  of  mind 
and  character,  great  desires,  yet  also  the  necessary  discipline 
to  keep  his  passions  in  check  and  direct  his  extraordinary  gifts 
to  a  worthy  object.  From  his  father  he  inherited  method  and  the 
scientific  spirit,  and  it  was  also  his  father  who  turned  his  thoughts 
to  Italy,  and  inspired  him  with  zeal  for  learning  and  dilettante 
interests.  His  poetic  talent,  his  gift  of  figurative  speech,  his 
fiery  nature,  and  his  sweeping  fancy  descended  to  him  from  his 
mother.  She  herself  was  gifted  with  a  straightforward,  cheerful 
eloquence;  every  unimportant  note  that  she  wrote  breathes  the 
charm  of  naturalness  and  originality ;  she  was  an  incomparable 
teller  of  fairy-tales,  and  by  telling  the  boy  but  half  a  story  and 
letting  him  guess  the  rest,  she  early  trained  him  to  poetic  in¬ 
vention.  His  education  was  somewhat  irregularly  pursued,  but 
was  such  as  would  promote  rapid  development  towards  intellectual 
freedom,  and  the  most  important  productions  of  contemporary 
literature  were  at  an  early  age  put  in  the  boy’s  hands.  Goethe 

Goethe  was  ^orn  on  2  8th  August,  1749,  when  Geflert, 

b.  1749.  Gleim,  Klopstock,  and  Lessing  had  already  begun  to 
His  early  write.  His  father  favoured  the  rhyming  poets,  and  a 
education.  p.-encj  famjiy  introduced  the  ‘  Messias.’  The 

beauty  of  the  Old  Testament  called  forth  a  willing  admiration 
in  the  boy,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  those  naive,  idyllic  elements 
which  he  soon  handled  in  such  a  masterly  manner.  A  pantomime 
to  which  he  was  taken  gave  him  the  first  impulse  to  dramatic 
writing,  and  a  translation  of  Tasso’s  ‘  Gerusalemme  Liberata  ’ 
seems  to  have  furnished  him  with  the  first  chivalric-heroic  subject. 
Precocious  and  ambitious  as  a  boy,  he  had,  by  the  time  he  was 
sixteen,  tried  his  hand  in  all  branches  of  poetic  composition,  and 
had  learned  everything  there  was  to  be  learned  in  the  Imperial  city ; 
he  had  witnessed  an  Imperial  coronation,  had  mixed  with  all  sorts  and 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe. 


93 


conditions  of  men,  had  looked  more  than  was  good  for  him 
into  social  evils,  and  had  loved  often  and  known  the  disap¬ 
pointments  of  love.  At  sixteen,  following  his  father’s  wish  and 
suppressing  his  own  leaning  towards  philology,  he  went  to  the 
University  of  Leipzig,  with  the  avowed  purpose 
of  studying  law ;  but  in  fact  he  dabbled  in  all  Leipzig 
sciences,  and  received  a  really  deep  and  lasting  University, 

■J 

impression  only  from  his  intercourse  with  an  artist,  1 
that  same  Oeser  who  at  an  earlier  period  had  influenced  Winckel- 
mann  in  Dresden.  He  returned  after  three  years,  out  of  health 
and  depressed  in  spirits,  to  his  paternal  home  ;  but  during  his 
time  in  Leipzig  he  had  made  great  advances  in  taste  and  in  poetic 
power.  A  couple  of  unrhymed  odes  written  at  this  period  are 
full  of  happy  imagery,  and  in  a  number  of  rhymed  poems  he 
combined  the  half-jocose,  half-didactic,  operetta-like  tone  of  the 
Leipzig  school  with  a  keen  appreciation  of  nature,  and  thus 
brought  the  graceful,  frivolous,  Anacreontic  poetry  to  its  highest 
perfection.  In  a  pastoral  play  entitled  ‘The  Humour  of  the  Lover, 
he  succeeded  in  giving  quite  a  new  rendering  to  «pie  Laune 
an  old  theme,  well  known  in  Leipzig;  the  interest  of  des  Yer- 
the  old  plot  is  enhanced  by  the  life-like  way  in  which  he  liebten.’ 
draws  the  characters,  and  the  whole  play  is  a  true  and  unique 
work  of  art,  written  in  the  charming  but  usually  somewhat  trivial 
style  of  the  dramatic  idyll.  Older  Frankfort  associations  of  Goethe’s 
are  reflected  in  the  disagreeable,  but  powerful  comedy  of  ‘  The 
Accomplices/  In  all  these  productions  it  is  evident  ‘DieMit- 
that  Goethe  had  not  only  imbibed  the  Leipzig  literary  schuldigen.’ 
spirit  from  Gellert  and  Weisse,  but  that  Lessing’s  newly  published 
‘  Minna  ’  had  greatly  benefited  his  dramatic  technique.  It  is  clear 
also  that  Klopstock  and  Wieland  had  enriched  his  poetic  language 
and  ideas,  and  that  Oeser’ s  teaching  had  not  been  thrown  away 
upon  him.  We  may  further  notice  that  in  all  these  poems  he 
does  what,  as  a  writer  of  lyrics,  he  continued  to  do  for  many 
decades, — he  treats  almost  exclusively  of  matters  drawn  from  hr, 
own  personal  experience,  and  seeks  to  alleviate  his  inward  distress 
by  uttering  it  in  vnrse. 

His  ideal  at  this  time  was  innocence,  and  he  preferred  the 


94 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


cheerful  and  naive  to  the  exaggerated  heroism  and  stupendous 
virtue  which  Wieland  had  already  attacked.  But  beyond  this, 
Lessing’s  ‘  Minna  ’  had  directed  him  to  great  national  subjects ; 
he  was  also  familiar  with  Shakspeare,  and  at  Strassburg,  whither 

Goethe  and  went  sPrino  of  I77°  to  complete  his  legal 

Herder  in  studies,  he  made  the  acquaintance  of  Herder,  with 

Strassburg,  whom  he  spent  the  winter  of  1770-71.  He  oc- 
1770 

casionally  felt  himself  somewhat  roughly  treated  and 
cruelly  mocked  at  by  his  master,  but  this  stern  discipline  was  whole¬ 
some  for  him.  Herder’s  gods  became  his  gods  ;  the  pupil  of  Wieland 
was  taken  into  the  school  of  nature,  and  his  lyric  poetry  at  once 
underwent  a  thorough  transformation.  To  see  the  difference,  one 
need  only  compare  the  Leipzig  poem :  ‘  Nun  verlass  ’  ich  diese 
Htitte  ’  in  which  he  describes  himself  coming  out  from  the 
cottage  of  his  beloved  into  the  lonely  wood  and  the  moon-light, 
with  the  celebrated  Strassburg  poem :  *  Es  schlug  mein  Herz, 
geschwind  zu  Pferde.’  The  former  does  indeed  contain  one  beautiful 
metaphor : — 

1  Und  die  Birken  streun  mit  Neigen 
Ihr  den  siissten  Weihrauch  auf’ — 


the  first  instance  of  Goethe’s  incomparable  art  of  finding  a 
poetical  meaning  in  the  appearance  of  plants.  In  other  re¬ 
spects,  however,  this  poem  is  full  of  affectation,  such  as  the 
pastoral  fancy  and  the  introduction  of  ancient  mythology ; 
description  takes  the  place  of  action  and  the  poem  winds  up 
with  a  very  ordinary  lover’s  jest.  Very  different  is  the  poem 
written  at  Strassburg,  describing  how  the  lover  sets  out  to  see  his 
beloved,  his  welcome  and  his  farewell.  Here,  four  stanzas  give 
us  a  succession  of  dramatic  scenes  in  the  fewest  words,  and  the 
whole  is  penetrated  by  the  glowing  breath  of  passion.  All  fits 
in  exactly  with  Herder’s  theory  of  the  song,  a  theory  which  he 
founded  on  the  primitive  nature  of  language,  and  which  may  be 
summed  up  in  the  sequence :  ‘  verb,  life,  action,  passion.’  There 
is  no  dragging  in  of  dead  mythology  here,  but  actual  creating 
of  it  anew,  as  if  it  had  never  existed  before.  While  in  Strassburg 
Herder  had  thus  described  the  genesis  of  mythology  :  1  the  savage 
saw  the  lofty  tree  towering  in  its  majesty,  and  he  marvelled  thereat ; 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe . 


95 


the  tree-top  rustled,  and  he  heard  the  godhead  weaving;  the 
savage  fell  on  his  knees  and  prayed.  There  you  have  the 
history  of  man  as  a  sensuous  being.’  Goethe  had  learnt  to  look 
on  nature  as  a  savage.  He  had  listened  to  Herder’s  advice  and 
thereby  made  immeasurable  progress.  He  had  as  it  were  drunk 
from  the  original  source  whence  poetry  first  sprang,  and  now 
he  was  fortified  for  every  task. 

But  in  this  Strassburg  song  Goethe  had  not  created  accord¬ 
ing  to  abstract  rules  alone  ;  he  had  also  drawn  from  Qoethe  and 
real  life.  The  beloved  one  really  existed  of  whom  Friederike 
he  sang.  In  Alsace,  in  the  country  parsonage  of  Brion. 
Sesenheim,  he  had  met  Friederike  Brion.  She  was  a  quiet, 
bright,  naive,  faithful  girl,  and  was  soon  devoted  with  her  whole 
heart  to  the  merry  student ;  in  her  Goethe  found  his  long-sought 
ideal.  The  pastor’s  family  at  Sesenheim  seemed  to  him  the 
Vicar  of  Wakefield  and  his  family  in  real  life  ;  here  was  an  idyll 
without  affectation,  without  any  false  halo;  here  was  pure,  beautiful 
family-life,  with  all  its  kindliness  and  gentle  charm,  the  simple 
country  occupations,  the  happy  atmosphere  which  good  people 
diffuse  around  them.  Reality,  imagination,  and  love  combined 
to  make  Friederike  the  real  embodiment  of  his  ideal ;  thus 
Herder’s  pupil  learnt  to  base  his  poetical  creations  upon  reality. 
It  was  at  Sesenheim  that  he  made  his  preliminary  studies  for 
Gretchen  and  Clarchen,  for  ‘  Werther  ’  and  for  his  ‘  Hermann  and 
Dorothea.’ 

But  Alsace  gave  Goethe  more  than  Herder  and  Friederike. 
The  Strassburg  Minster  made  him  an  admirer  of  inftueuces  0f 
Gothic  architecture.  The  national  enmities  apparent  Go3the’s 
in  his  immediate  vicinity,  the  general  tendency  of  Strassburg 
German  feeling  after  the  Seven  Years’  War,  the  religious  Period- 
phase  he  was  then  passing  through,  and  in  this  case  too,  Herder’s 
example,  excited  in  him  an  aversion  to  France  and  French  litera¬ 
ture.  He  and  several  young  and  turbulent  companions  vied  with 
each  other  in  passionate  patriotic  sentiments,  and  in  doing  homage 
to  the  spirit  of  Shakspeare.  Leipzig  gallantry  began  to  be 
supplanted  by  free-and-easy,  student-like  manners,  joined  with 
plain  speech  and  coarse  jokes,  and  this  spirit  even  penetrated  into 


96 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch,  XI. 


poetry.  Julius  Caesar  and  other  great  historical  characters  capti¬ 
vated  the  fancy  of  the  youthful  Goethe,  whose  self-confidence  soon 
soared  beyond  all  limits;  Mahomet  and  Socrates  floated  before 
his  mind,  while  Lessing  and  the  marionette-plays  had  already  directed 
his  attention  to  the  figure  of  Faust.  But  chance  threw  another 
hero  in  his  way,  who  for  the  time  being  attracted  him  more  than 
these,  and  who  could  more  easily  be  made  the  centre  of  a  drama — 
Gotz  von  Berlichingen. 

The  historical  Gotz,  a  robber-knight  and  a  leader  in  the 
‘Gotz  von  peasant- wars  of  the  sixteenth  century,  had  employed 

Berlich-  the  enforced  leisure  of  his  later  days  in  writing  an 
ingen,  1771.  autobiography  in  defence  of  his  life  and  conduct.  He 
represented  himself  as  an  honest  but  much  misunderstood  and 
slandered  person,  a  man  who  had  always  followed  right  and  justice, 
and  had  never  fought  but  in  defence  of  the  weak.  His  record  of  him- 
self  was  printed,  and  falling  into  Goethe’s  hands,,  was  completely 
believed  by  him.  He  took  the  old  knight  just  as  he  had  described 
himself,  and  determined  to  rescue  him  from  oblivion,  just  as 
Lessing  was  so  fond  of  doing  to  forgotten  worthies.  It  was  the 
more  natural  that  Goethe  should  choose  such  a  subject  because 
at  that  time  chivalry  was  being  revived  in  literature,  especially 
in  France.  Goethe’s  early  acquaintance  with  Tasso  and  with 
popular  romances  such  as  the  ‘  Haimonskinder’  had  laid  a  good 
foundation  in  this  direction,  and  the  subject  of  Gotz  attracted 
his  glance  to  the  most  important  period  of  the  Reformation,  as 
well  as  to  those  old  imperial  relations  and  conditions  which 
had  from  old  time  been  fraught  with  special  interest  for  the 
imperial  town  of  Frankfort.  Protestant  sympathies  are  reflected 
in  the  piece,  and  the  poet  draws  a  by  no  means  flattering  picture 
of  a  clerical  court,  and  gives  a  lamentable  description  of  the 
condition  of  the  Empire  at  that  period ;  no  one  can  find  justice, 
each  must  shift  for  himself,  and  the  blame  of  this  disorder  lies 
with  the  independent  princes,  against  whom  even  the  Emperor  can 
do  nothing.  Gotz  is  a  good  Imperialist,  but  he  hates  bad  sovereigns, 

Goethe’s  and  though  he  should  succumb  in  the  struggle,  still 
Liberalism,  h;s  dying  breath  he  will  invoke  success  for  the 

cause  of  Liberty.  In  this  play  Goethe  championed  the  cause 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe. 


97 


of  freedom  against  the  tyrants  of  Germany,  and  contrasted  the 
honest,  patriotic,  chivalrous  life  of  his  hero,  with  the  corrupt  life 
of  the  courts.  Haller’s  newly  published  novel  ‘  Usong  *  and 
the  criticism  of  the  courts  in  Thummel’s  and  Weisse’s  works 
were  not  without  influence  on  Goethe  in  writing  this  piece ;  but 
at  the  same  time  he  was  also  under  the  power  of  a  local  and 
family  tradition,  which  urged  upon  him  a  certain  liberalism  in 
politics.  His  father  was  in  the  habit  of  warning  him  against 
becoming  a  mere  courtier.  Herr  von  Loen,  a  relative  of  the 
Goethe  family,  had  described  in  a  didactic  novel  the  difficulties 
which  an  honest  man  has  to  overcome  at  court;  and  Frederick 
Karl  von  Moser,  one  of  the  most  eminent  German  statesmen  of 
the  last  century,  had  published  at  Frankfort  in  1759  a  book,  called 
‘  Der  Herr  und  der  Diener/  which  in  bold  and  passionate  language 
ruthlessly  criticised  the  sovereigns  of  the  smaller  German  states. 

Goethe  was  back  in  Frankfort,  when  about  the  end  of  1771  he 
wrote  down  the  first  sketch  of  his  ‘Gotz/  On  the  28th  of  August  in 
that  year  he  had  been  called  to  the  bar.  His  old  interests  and 
connections  were  taken  up  again,  and  new  ones  were  added  to 
them ;  yet  he  was  not  happy,  for  he  was  oppressed  by  a  sense  of 
having  injured  an  innocent  person ;  Friederike  Brion  had  given 
him  her  heart,  and  though  perhaps  no  formal  vows  had  been  ex¬ 
changed,  they  seemed  to  belong  to  each  other,  and  Goethe’s 
she  might  well  have  expected  a  declaration  from  him  desertion  of 
after  his  return  home ;  instead,  there  came  a  letter  Friederike- 
taking  leave  of  her  altogether.  The  young  lawyer  did  not  dare  to 
introduce  the  Alsatian  clergyman’s  daughter  into  the  Frankfort 
patrician  family.  He  reproached  himself  for  his  conduct,  and 
could  not  forgive  himself  for  it,  but  he  did  not  repent  and  return 
to  his  deserted  love.  He  did  not  see  her  again  till  eight  years 
afterwards,  when  he  was  Minister  at  Weimar;  the  meeting  between 
them  was  calm  and  affectionate,  and  set  him  at  rest  with  himself. 
His  poems  written  during  the  intervening  years  testified  that  he 
anyhow  deeply  felt  his  guilt  in  the  matter;  we  find  him  characters  in 
creating,  as  a  foil  to  his  honest  Gotz,  the  character  ‘Gotz.’ 
of  Weislingen,  the  unfaithful  lover  of  Gotz’s  gentle  sister.  Weis- 
lingen  is  a  portrait  of  Goethe  himself,  and  a  portrait  more  honest  than 


VOL.  11. 


H 


9« 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


flattering.  He  is  an  elegant  and  seductive  young  gallant,  of  weak 
character,  and  spoilt  by  court-life  ;  he  wavers  between  two  very 
different  women,  but  is  finally  drawn  away  from  the  gentle  and 
good  one  by  a  lovely  but  fiendish  rival. 

Lessing’s  ‘  Sara  ’  was  the  only  important  German  tragedy  which 
‘  Gotz  ’  offered  itself  to  the  young  poet  as  a  model  in 

written  in  writing  this  play,  and  it  was  no  wonder  that  so 

imitation  of  imperfect  a  work  compared  unfavourably  with  Shak- 

Shakspeare.  ou  i  >  ,,  t  ,  j 

speare.  Shakspeare  s  name  was  the  standard  under 

which  Goethe  resolved  to  win.  Addison  and  Bodmer,  Lessing 
and  Herder,  Wieland  and  Gerstenberg.  had  proclaimed  the  great 
dramatist’s  merits.  Christian  Felix  Weisse’s  £  Richard  III,’  though 
meritorious,  could  not  hold  its  own  by  the  side  of  Shakspeare’s,  and 
his  ‘  Romeo  and  Juliet’  only  awakened  a  longing  for  the  Shakspearian 
original.  Gerstenberg  sought  to  approach  nearer  to  the  real  Shak¬ 
speare  in  his  ‘Ugolino,’  but  it  was  impossible  to  feel  any  enthu¬ 
siasm  for  a  play  in  which  hunger  reigned  through  all  five  acts.  The 
Strassburg  brethren  would  hear  no  more  of  dilutions  of  Shakspeare ; 
they  wanted  to  transplant  the  real  Shakspeare  into  German  literature, 
and  with  this  object  Goethev  treated  his  ‘  Gotz  ’  in  the  manner  of  a 
Shakspearian  historical  drama.  In  this  first  version  of  the  play 
unity  of  time  and  place  is  utterly  disregarded,  and  change  of  scene 
occurs  for  a  monologue  of  three  lines  or  a  dialogue  of  six.  The 
unity  of  action  is  spoilt  by  the  introduction  of  Weislingen,  who  thrusts 
himself  in  as  a  second  hero.  Men  of  all  ranks,  citizens,  soldiers,  ser¬ 
vants,  and  peasants  are  dragged  in ;  the  variety  of  character  and 
sentiment  is  carried  to  excess,  tragedy  and  comedy  being  inter¬ 
mingled,  and  a  Shakspearian  clown  and  jester  set  down  in  the  midst 
of  a  society  of  courtiers.  Small  songs  are  introduced,  and  there  is 
much  strong  language  and  coarseness,  along  with  far-fetched  similes 
and  exaggeration,  reminding  one  of  Lohenstein  and  the  old  ‘  chief- 
actions  and  State-actions’  (cf.  vol.  i.  p.  398),  while  at  the  same  time 
many  Shakspearian  reminiscences  occur  throughout  the  play.  Over¬ 
joyed  with  this  work,  which  he  had  accomplished  so  quickly  and 
easily  Goethe  sent  it  to  Herder.  But  Herder,  who  was  an  inexorable 
opponent  of  all  imitation,  summed  up  his  judgment  in  the  following 
words:  ‘Shakspeare  has  quite  spoilt  you.’  Lessing’s  ‘  Emilia  Galotti/ 


Ch.  XL] 


Herder  and  Goethe . 


99 


which  made  its  appearance  about  the  same  time,  showed  how  dif¬ 
ferent  a  conception  the  master  of  German  drama  had  formed  of 
the  manner  in  which  Shakspeare  should  be  followed.  Goethe  at 
once  felt  that  ‘Emilia’  was  an  original  work,  while  his  ‘  Gotz’  was 
only  an  imitation.  Without  being  discouraged  he  set  to  work  afresh. 
He  could  not  now  alter  the  essential  features  of  the  piece,  but  he  could 
weld  it  into  greater  unity,  and  could  remove  as  far  as  possible  all  forms 
of  expression  which  he  was  conscious  of  having  borrowed  from  Shak¬ 
speare.  He  could  at  the  same  time  aim  higher  than  Lessing,  for  he 
despised  all  artificial  restraints,  all  affectation,  and  high-sounding 
language  in  the  dialogue  generally,  while  he  retained  the  ornate 
language  and  formal  expressions  proper  to  the  conversation  of 
couriiers.  He  often  used  words  merely  to  indicate  actions,  and 
altogether  succeeded  in  imparting  to  his  dialogue  the  tone  of 
natural  conversation.  ‘  Gdtz  von  Berlichingen  ’  ap-  impr0ved 
peared  before  the  public  in  this  new  and  improved  version  of 
form  in  the  summer  of  1773.  It  presented  a  picture  ‘  G°tz>  1773- 
drawn  from  the  past  history  of  the  nation  ;  the  characters  were 
purely  German,  such  as  had  never  hitherto  been  seen  in  German 
tragedy,  and  of  which  Lessing’s  ‘  Minna  ’  offered  the  only  exam¬ 
ples  in  the  sphere  of  comedy.  The  play  is  full  of  life,  action,  and 
truth.  The  noble  character  of  its  hero,  powerless  to  stem  the 
wickedness  of  the  world,  is  most  pathetic,  and  the  interest  of  the 
play  is  enhanced  by  all  the  display  of  a  romantic  chivalry,  and  by 
the  quick  succession  of  exciting  incidents. 

Goethe’s  ‘  Gotz  ’  was  the  signal  for  a  perfect  Shakspeare-mania 
in  Germany,  though  it  marked  the  end  of  this  same  mania  in  its 
author.  By  writing  c  Gotz  *  Goethe  freed  himself  from  the  ser¬ 
vile  imitation  of  Shakspeare,  and  learnt  from  him  original 
and  independent  dramatic  art.  Only  two  of  his  other  plays, 
‘Faust’  and  ‘Egmont,’  both  planned  simultaneously  with  or 
shortly  after  ‘  Gotz,’  show  the  same  rapid  change  of  scene/  which 
is  so  incompatible  with  our  theatrical  arrangements.  Goethe 
sought  henceforth  to  put  himself  in  sympathy  with  the  living  stage, 
and  Lessing’s  technique,  which  differed  little  from  Smaller 

that  of  the  French,  was  adopted  by  him  as  authori-  dramas, 

tative.  By  operettas  such  as  ‘  Erwin  und  Elmire  ’  and  ‘  Claudine 


H  2 


lOO 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


von  Villabella/  he  sought  to  win  the  favour  of  the  average  theatre¬ 
goer  by  cultivating  the  fashionable  dramatic  form  of  the  day. 
In  his  ‘  Clavigo/  a  tragedy  dealing  with  middle-class  life,  and 
in  his  ‘  Stella/  he  countenanced  change  of  scene  but  once  at 
the  utmost  within  an  act,  and  maintained  unity  of  time  also  to  a 
certain  degree.  But  he  did  not  yield  himself  up  entirely  to  modem 
subjects  and  modern  treatment.  The  historical  mood  in  which  he 
had  begun  this  literary  Revolution  had  by  no  means  passed  off  with 
the  appearance  of  *  Gotz/  and  though  ‘  Faust’  and  ‘  Egmont’  took 
shape  more  slowly,  yet  their  author’s  whole  heart  was  in  them. 
The  sixteenth  century  with  its  free  and  active  spirit  of  enquiry  and 
its  valiant  struggle  against  intellectual  slavery,  seemed  to  him  the 
ideal  epoch  of  history.  There  he  found  characters  such  as  he 
wanted,  thoughts  and  deeds,  the  study  of  which  might  elevate  and 
brace  up  a  more  effeminate  age,  and  in  addition  to  these  a  style  of 
art  full  of  characteristic  truth  and  simple  nature.  The  fame 
of  Hans  Sachs  began  to  be  revived  about  this  time.  In  1765 
he  was  made  the  subject  of  a  monograph ;  then  Kastner  put 
in  a  good  word  for  him,  and  the  local  patriotism  of  Ntirnberg, 
thus  encouraged,  burst  forth  into  warm  eulogies.  Goethe  himself 
influence  of  considered  the  poetic  shoemaker  of  Ntirnberg  of  suffi- 
Hans  Sachs  cient  importance  to  make  his  style  worth  reviving, 
on  Goethe.  Goethe’s  study  of  Shakspeare  enabled  him  to  take  up 
the  threads  of  literature  at  the  point  where  the  Thirty  Years’  War 
had  suddenly  stopped  the  development  of  the  German  drama. 
Flans  Sachs  gave  him  the  clue  to  what  Opitz  and  his  school  had 
missed  in  the  seventeenth  century ;  and  while  his  own  refined 
sense  of  form  and  beauty  purified  the  old  shoemaker’s  easy  doggrel 
verse  and  realistic  style,  the  influence  which  Hans  Sachs  exercised 
over  Goethe  is  traceable  in  his  satirical  dramas,,  such  as  ‘  Das  Jahr- 
marktsfest  zu  Plundersweilen/  or  ‘  Satyros,’  or  the  Carnival  play, 
‘Pater  Brey;’  in  little  didactic  plays,  such  as  ‘  Kimstler’s  Erden- 
wallen  ’  (The  artist’s  earthly  wanderings),  and  ‘Ktinstler’s  Vergot- 
terung  ’  (The  artist’s  apotheosis),  in  his  poem  written  in  praise  of 
the  old  master  himself,  and  above  all  in  4  Faust.’ 

But  while  Goethe  was  following  these  national  aspirations  he 
was  at  the  same  time  absorbed  in  the  study  of  classical  antiquity, 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe. 


IOI 


just  as  Lessing  had  produced  almost  simultaneously  his  ‘  Minna ' 
and  his  *  Laokoon/  and  Goethe  himself,  when  in  classical 
Leipzig,  had  been  equally  influenced  by  the  Dutch  tendencies 
genre-painters  and  by  Oeser’s  classic  grace.  At  in  Goetlie' 
Strassburg,  in  Herder’s  company,  he  began  to  read  Homer,  and 
after  he  had,  under  the  strong  influence  of  Shakspeare,  written 
down  the  first  sketch  for  ‘  Gotz,’  he  devoted  himself  to  Theo¬ 
critus  and  Pindar.  ‘  Gotz’  had  hardly  appeared  when  he  ventured 
to  rival  Aeschylus  with  a  ‘  Prometheus.’  Teutonic  and  Hellenic 
elements  of  culture,  with  their  two  opposite  styles,  gained  power 
over  him  simultaneously,  and  each  benefited  the  other.  Beside 
the  doggrel  verses  he  employed  rhymeless,  free  rhythms,  with 
beautiful,  sonorous  epithets.  He  produced  odes,  scenes,  and  fables 
modelled  upon  the  Greek  type,  and  at  the  same  time  rhyming  proverbs 
and  sarcasms  about  correct  style  directed  against  the  critics  of  the 
day.  He  united  Hans  Sachs’  method  of  description  with  Homer’s  epic 
breadth,  and  was  able,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  Strassburg  song  men¬ 
tioned  above,  to  clothe  pathetic  descriptions  of  travel  and  wandering, 
set  in  the  midst  of  nature’s  ever-shifting  scenes,  in  the  powerful  and 
exalted  style  of  the  Pindaric  odes.  His  poem  called  *  Der  Wan- 
‘  Der  Wanderer,’  in  part  suggested  by  Oliver  Gold-  derer.’ 
smith’s  ‘  Traveller,’  deals  with  motives  and  incidents  of  rustic  life, 
full  of  human  interest ;  here  he  followed  Theocritus’  example,  and 
employed  the  form  of  a  dialogue  in  order  to  suggest  a  walk  pre¬ 
senting  change  of  scene  and  varying  objects  of  nature  and  art,  and 
to  give  the  reader  a  glimpse  of  the  conditions  of  domestic  life  in  the 
country.  In  this  poem  too  we  can  everywhere  trace  Herder’s  literary 
and  historical  many-sidedness  bearing  fruit  in  Goethe,  and  develop¬ 
ing  dormant  powers  in  the  mind  of  the  young  poet.  He  had  now 
got  far  beyond  the  rhymed  prettinesses  of  Wieland’s  Hellenism, 
which  he  had  so  admired  in  Leipzig,  and  he  strongly  attacked  them 
in  his  plain-spoken  prose  farce,  entitled  ‘  Gotter,  •  Gotter, 

Ilelden  und  Wieland,’  in  which  the  Greeks  are  made  to  Helden  Ulld 
,  i  •  ,  .  ,  Wieland,’ 

behave  m  a  rude,  bragging,  and  student-like  manner.  and  <  prome. 

But  his  ‘Prometheus,’  which  he  beggn  in  1773  theus.’ 

as  a  drama  in  blank  verse,  and  which  he  afterwards  cut  down 

to  a  single  monologue,  remained  free  from  such  extravagances. 


102 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


and  is  throughout  grand  and  elevated.  Prometheus  is  a  creative 
artist,  who  loves  his  creatures  and  breathes  life  into  them.  He 
looks  to  Heaven  for  nothing,  but  relies  entirely  upon  his  own 
power;  in  this  respect  he  expresses  one  side  of  Goethe's  own 
religious  convictions. 

The  inner  life  of  the  poet  had  already  passed  through  various 
Goethe’s  phases.  Though  from  early  years,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
religious  Bible  enriched  the  store  of  his  poetic  imagination,  yet  a 
develop-  superficial  religious  teaching  and  unedifying  sermons 
loosened  even  in  school-years  the  ties  binding  him 
to  the  Church.  At  the  University  of  Leipzig  biblical  and 
dogmatic  criticism  gave  to  his  mind  a  thoroughly  liberal  ten¬ 
dency.  But  an  illness  and  a  pious  friend  were  the  means  of 
bringing  him  again  nearer  to  the  Gospel ;  and  on  his  return 
home,  a  friend  of  his  mother’s,  Fraulein  von  Klettenberg,  won 
him  as  a  convert  to  the  Pietism  of  the  Moravians.  Mystical  ideas 
struck  root  in  him,  and  he  began  to  give  vent  to  passionate  yearn¬ 
ings  after  deliverance  from  earthly  fetters,  and  union  with  God.  But 
this  pious  mood,  which  at  the  beginning  of  his  Strassburg  career 
was  still  strong  upon  him,  did  not  last  long.  We  learn  that  in  the 
summer  of  1772  Goethe  no  longer  went  to  church  or  to  the 
Sacrament  and  seldom  prayed.  He  was  loth  to  disturb  others  in 
their  views,  being  thoroughly  tolerant  in  religion  and  morals  ;  sym¬ 
pathy  for  human  weakness  appeared  to  him  the  true  theology.  But 
in  the  very  next  year  this  toleration  forsook  him,  and  we  find  him 
attacking  those  with  whom  he  had  so  recently  been  in  close  sym¬ 
pathy.  He  not  only  ridiculed  the  vulgar  rationalism  represented  by 
Doctor  Bahrdt,  who  gave  much  offence  by  extreme  teaching  and 
frivolous  living,  but  he  also  scoffed  at  sentimental  religiosity  and 
the  pietistic  worship  of  the  Lamb,  at  separatism  and  missionary 
zeal.  He  conceived  the  plan  of  devoting  a  religious  satirical  epic 
in  doggrel  to  the  character  of  the  Wandering  Jew.  The  shoemaker 
of  Jerusalem,  who,  according  to  the  mediaeval  legend,  jeered  at 
Christ  bearing  the  cross,  and  was  in  consequence  condemned  to 
wander  until  Christ’s  second  coming,  was  transformed  by  Goethe 
into  a  Moravian  and  Separatist ;  but  Goethe  makes  Christ  return, 
not  as  the  judge  of  all  mankind,  but  as  the  ruler  of  the  millennium. 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe. 


ic  3 

The  moment  when  deeply  moved  he  beholds  the  earth  once  more 
is  one  of  the  grandest  things  that  Goethe's  imagination  ever  pro¬ 
duced.  With  the  naivete  of  a  Hans  Sachs,  and  with  an  unconcerned 
humanising  of  divine  things,  he  succeeds  in  revealing  to  us  wonder¬ 
ful  depths  of  the  soul,  so  that  our  hearts  are  touched  to  the  very  core. 
Unfortunately  the  work  never  got  further  than  a  few  fragmentary 
beginnings,  which  were  not  made  public  till  after  Goethe’s  death. 

When  he  wrote  these  fragments  Goethe  had  quite  broken  with 
the  belief  in  a  Providence  arbitrarily  interfering  with  human  fate, 
and  retained  nothing  but  the  universal  Deity  of  Goethe’s 
Spinoza.  His  experience  seemed  to  have  taught  him  Spinozism. 
that  in  the  moments  of  our  life  when  help  is  most  needed  wre  are 
throwm  upon  our  own  resources.  He  had  discovered,  he  thought, 
like  Frederick  the  Great  in  the  exigencies  of  the  Seven  Years’ War, 
that  God  is  deaf  to  our  entreaties.  His  creative  talent  seemed  to 
him  the  only  thing  on  which  he  could  now  rely.  Faith  in  his 
artistic  power  alone  did  not  deceive  him,  and  Beauty  wras  his 
Goddess.  His  Prometheus  rejects  the  demands  of  the  Gods  like 
the  Prometheus  of  ^Eschylus,  and  like  the  Cyclops  of  Euripides 
is  devoted  to  earthly  possessions.  He  knows  that  nothing  is 
his  but  the  sphere  of  his  activity  and  influence,  ‘nothing  below 
that  and  nothing  above.’  He  says  with  Spinoza :  ‘  Thus  I  am 
eternal,  for  I  exist,’  and  he  deems  himself  on  a  level  with  the 
Gods.  But  the  defiant  w^ords  which  he  launches  against  them 
w^ere  probably  not  meant  to  be  his  last ;  if  Goethe  had  finished 
the  drama,  he  would  probably  have  shown  that  men  do  stand  in 
need  of  the  Gods ;  the  arrogance  of  the  artist  would  have  been 
humbled,  and  the  result  w'ould  have  been  the  joy  of  which  his  brother 
suggests  the  prospect,  the  bliss  when  the  Gods,  Prometheus,  his 
creatures,  and  the  w^orld  and  heaven  shall  all  feel  themselves  to 
be  parts  of  a  harmonious  whole.  Although  Goethe  no  longer 
looked  to  Heaven  for  help,  yet  he  had  not  wholly  lost  his 
reverence  for  the  Deity.  That  mystic  union  with  God  which 
he  had  learned  from  the  Moravians,  he  found  echoed  in 
Spinoza’s  teaching.  Goethe  too  felt  himself  to  be  a  part  of  the 
all-embracing,  all-sustaining  spirit  of  the  universe,  and  in  in¬ 
effable  emotion  he  celebrated  his  recognition  of  the  Deity.  The 


104 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


monologue  of  Prometheus  was  completed  bv  a  monologue  of 
Ganymede,  in  which  Love  of  Nature  becomes  love  of  God. 

Our  salvation,  our  happiness,  our  liberty,  consist,  according  to 
Spinoza,  in  constant  and  eternal  love  of  God,  which  is  nothing 
else  than  a  part  of  that  infinite  love  with  which  God  loves  him¬ 
self.  But  though  Goethe  grasped  this  idea,  and  recognised  in 
Spinoza  himself  the  free  man,  who  rises  above  the  sea  of  passion 
and  in  happy  serenity  bids  the  storms  be  still,  yet  he  him- 
His  restless  se^  was  all  the  time  tossing  on  the  wild  sea  of  tur- 
and  turbu-  bulent  emotions ;  he  could  only  long  for,  not  win  the 
lent  life.  calm  of  the  wise  man,  and  he  was  on  the  way  to 
become  what  he  himself  designated  later  on  ‘  a  problematic 
nature,’  a  man  whom  no  sphere  of  life  would  satisfy,  and  who 
was  not  good  enough  for  any  sphere  of  life. 

His  barrister’s  work  made  no  great  claims  upon  him ;  he  had 
but  few  bnefs  and  even  in  those  his  father  helped  him.  There 
were  frequent  intermissions  in  his  work ;  he  was  often  in  Darmstadt 
where  he  had  a  valued  friend  in  Merck,  a  member  of  the  War  Ministry, 
with  whom  he  shared*  literary,  artistic,  and  personal  interests. 
During  the  year  1772  Merck  had  the  editing  of  the  Frankfort 
‘  Geiehrte  Anzeigen,’  a  cridcal  review  to  which  Herder  and  Goethe 
contributed,  and  in  which  were  heard  the  first  distant  notes  of 
the  German  literary  revolution.  In  the  summer  of  1772  Goethe 
passed  four  months  in  Wetzlar  in  order  to  become  acquainted  with 
the  procedure  of  the  Imperial  Chancery  (Reichskammergericht). 
In  the  summer  of  1774  he  travelled  down  the  Rhine  to 
Diisseldorf,  and  in  the  summer  of  1775  he  went  to  Switzerland. 
It  became  more  and  more  manifest  that  Frankfort  was  not  the 
right  sphere  for  him.  The  many  distinguished  strangers  who 
came  to  see  him  there  could  not  compensate  him  for  what  he 
missed  at  home.  He  felt  himself  confined  and  fettered  on  every 
side.  The  legal  profession  did  not  satisfy  him,  and  he  could  not 
devote  himself  exclusively  to  a  poetical  career.  In  addition  to  this, 
His  love-entanglements  of  various  kinds  had  brought  him 
love-affairs.  jnt0  equivocal  and  difficult  pos.tions.  In  Wetzlar  he 

- — — — — ■ "f 

fell  violently  in  love  with  Lotte  Buff,  the  affianced  bride  of  his  good 
friend  Kestner;  but  in  this  case  the  firm  character  of  the  girl, 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe . 


105 


Goethe’s  friendship  for  her  betrothed,  and  finally  separation  and 
departure  all  worked  together  to  quell  the  passion.  In  Frankfort,  how¬ 
ever,  he  fascinated  girls  and  women,  awakened  feelings  which  he 
could  not  share,  and  excited  wishes  which  he  might  not  satisfy. 
Now  it  was  an  excellent,  simple  girl  to  whom  he  seemed  so  much 
attached  that  his  parents  fully  expected  an  engagement,  which  how¬ 
ever  never  came  to  pass ;  at  another  time  it  was  the  brilliant  vision 
of  Lili  Schonemann  which  irresistibly  attracted  him,  and  in  spite 
of  many  objections  an  engagement  took  place,  but  neither  did 
that  end  in  marriage.  Then  again,  side  by  side  with  Lili,  another 
figure  appears,  a  girl  whom,  according  to  the  expression  of  his 
diary,  he  wore  like  a  spring  flower  upon  his  heart.  In  short, 
the  lovingness  and  loveableness  of  his  nature  were  constantly 
carrying  him  away  and  almost  turning  him  into  a  Don  Juan; 
but  all  this  disturbed  his  daily  life,  darkened  his  pleasures,  troubled 
his  conscience,  and  filled  him  with  the  most  painful  emotions. 
He  was  right  when,  in  the  October  of  1775,  he  called  the  months 
which  had  just  passed  the  most  distracted  and  confused,  the 
fullest  and  most  empty,  the  strongest  and  most  foolish  epoch 
of  his  life.  This  life  of  inward  and  outward  unrest  Goethe  goes 
was  happily  cut  short  in  November  1775  by  his  to  Weimar, 
accepting  an  invitation  to  the  court  at  Weimar,  where  1775, 
he  was  henceforth  to  make  his  home. 

But  however  prejudicial  these  four  stormy  years  of  barrister-life 
at  Frankfort  may  have  been  to  Goethe’s  moral  de-  Goethe’s 
velopment,  they  have  left  indelible  traces  in  his  poetry,  lyrics,  up  to 
In  Strassburg  his  lyric  poetry  was  only  just  begin-  1775* 
ning  to  free  itself  from  the  fetters  of  the  Leipzig  style ;  simul¬ 
taneously  with  the  passionate  poem,  ‘  Es  schlug  mein  Herz,’  he 
wrote  the  charming  song,  ‘  Mit  einem  gemalten  Bande,’  the  flower  of 
German  Anacreontic  poetry.  The  poems  to  Friederike  are  true  lyrics 
and  breathe  the  pure  and  peaceful  happiness  which  he  found  in  loving 
her.  But  the  poems  to  Lili  are  more  dramatic  in  their  effect  (‘  Neue 
Liebe,  neues  Leben,’  ‘  An  Belinden,’  ‘  Lili’s  Park’) ;  we  detect  in  them 
discord  and  struggle;  now  he  wishes  to  tear  himself  away,  now  he 
gives  up  resistance,  but  the  feelings  which  she  excites  are  always  of  a 
mixed  nature.  We  see  what  enthrals  him  here — the  youthful  freshness, 


[Ch.  XT. 


106 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


the  lovely  form,  the  look  full  of  faithfulness  and  kindness,  the  voice, 
the  song.  We  also  discover  what  vexes  him :  the  frivolous,  social  life, 
the  unbearable  people  who  surround  her,  the  whole  menagerie  of 
her  worshippers,  the  childish  coquettries  indiscriminately  showered- 
around,  and  which  he  is  to  share  with  the  rest.  And  whether 
he  sets  before  us  the  whole  painful  situation  in  an  elaborate 
allegory,  or  whether  a  single  despairing  sigh  escapes  from  his 
breast,  still  it  is  always  a  moment  of  inner  conflict,  intense  and 
irreconcileable,  which  his  song  reveals.  In  his  poems  to  Lili 
Goethe  characterizes  the  object  of  his  passion,  but  not  himself; 
for  the  latter  purpose  he  employed  other  forms,  epic  and  dramatic, 
in  which  he  continued  the  personal  confession  which  he  had  begun 
in  the  character  of  Weislingen.  In  his  next  play  this  character 
becomes  the  hero  himself,  under  the  title  of  Clavigo,  a  man  ot 
modern  times,  an  author,  tossed  hither  and  thither  by  ambition 
and  love,  till  he  is  finally  stabbed  at  the  bier  of  his  beloved  one, 
by  her  brother.  Crugantino,  the  scapegrace  in  ‘  Claudine  von 
His  Villabella/  a  Don  Juan  and  a  restless  wanderer, 
‘Clavigo,’  fairly  reflects  Goethe’s  own  character  at  the  time, 
von  Villa-  Fernando  too,  in  ‘Stella/  has  traits  taken  from  Goethe 
bella."  and  himself.  Fernando  has  left  his  wife  Cecilia  and  has 
‘  Stella.’  then  seduced  Stella ;  now  he  would  like  to  return 
to  his  duty,  yet  at  the  same  time  shrinks  from  making  Stella 
-unhappy ;  in  the  depths  of  despair  he  is  saved  by  the  proposal 
of  Cecilia,  that  they  should  all  three  remain  together.  Goethe  has 
never  carried  his  indulgence  towards  human  weakness,  and  his 
sympathy  with  a  loving,  suffering  heart  to  such  lengths  as  in  this 
piece,  to  which  however  he  subsequently  g  ive  a  tragic  termination  by 
the  death  of  Fernando  and  Stella.  It  is  worth  noticing  how  disinclined 
he  seems  to  make  use  of  German  surroundings  in  the  modern  drama. 
In  both  ‘  Clavigo  ’  and  ‘  Claudine  ’  the  scene  is  laid  in  Spain. 
Even  the  farce  of  ‘  Pater  Brey  ’  contains  a  captain  Balandrino  ;  and 
even  in  ‘  Stella/  which  is  otherwise  German,  the  vacillating,  aris¬ 
tocratic  lover  must  needs  have  the  sounding  name  of  Fernando. 
But  we  are  altogether  transported  to  native  soil  and  to  the  present, 
namely,  to  the  time  of  Goethe’s  youth,  in  the  fullest  and  most 
faithful  confession  which  he  made  at  that  time,  his  ‘  Werther/ 


Herder  and  Goethe . 


Ch.  XI.] 


107 


‘  The  Sorrows  of  young  Werther’  appeared  in  1774,  and  though 

thoroughly  German  in  character,  the  book  was  known  .  Leiden 

in  a  short  time  over  the  whole  civilised  world.  It  was  des  jungen 

translated  into  all  civilised  languages,  and  found  imi-  Werther,’ 

1774 

tators  in  many  literatures.  Unlike  ‘Gotz’  it  did  not 
presuppose  in  the  reader  an  interest  in  the  past  history  of  the  German 
nation,  but  appealed  to  every  warm-hearted  man  of  whatever  race. 
Goethe  ventured  in  this  novel  to  reproduce  in  an  artistic  form  his 
experiences  at  Wetzlar.  He  introduced  Lotte  Buff  into  it  with  her 
Christian  name  unaltered,  he  placed  beside  her  as  bridegroom  and 
husband,  under  the  name  of  Albert,  a  person  who  might  suggest 
Kestner,  and  he  drew  the  character  of  the  hero  half  from  himself, 
half  from  a  youth  called  Jerusalem,  the  son  of  the  Brunswick  clergy¬ 
man  (see  p.  70),  who  shot  himself  in  Wetzlar  on  the  29th  of  October, 
1772.  Jerusalem,  like  himself,  had  been  in  love  with  the  wife  of 
another  man,  and  his  death  decided  Goethe  to  write  the  book.  By 
drawing  on  his  own  experience,  by  representing  a  similar  situation 
in  which  he  had  found  himself  in  the  same  town,  Goethe  sought  to 
discover  what  could  be  the  cause  of  a  man’s  committing  suicide. 
He  wished  to  make  the  catastrophe  result  from  the  character,  as 
Lessing  had  taught  him  to  do  in  his  ‘  Dramaturgies  His  purpose 
was  to  combine  consistent  and  exact  development  of  character 
with  the  breadth  of  treatment  which  the  novel  allows  of  more  than 
the  drama.  He  therefore  accentuated  to  his  utmost  the  character 
of  the  hero. 

Werther  is  a  conscientious,  good  man,  who  even  as  a  child  loved 
to  indulge  in  dreams  and  fancies.  School  and  re-  werther’s 
straints  of  every  kind  were  hateful  to  him.  He  lost  character, 
his  father  young,  and  we  are  led  to  suppose  that  his  mother  neither 
educated  him  with  a  strong  hand,  nor  understood  him  enough  to 
gain  his  love  and  confidence.  He  is  not  obliged  to  work  for  his 
living,  but  he  has  been  educated  for  the  bar ;  his  understanding 
and  talents  have  been  much  praised,  but  he  does  not  care  to  use 
them  for  the  public  benefit  by  entering  the  public  service,  and  still 
less  does  he  wish  to  lead  a  scholar’s  life.  His  one  idea  is  to  revel 
in  the  most  refined  spiritual  pleasures,  reading  sympathetic  poets, 
listening  to  good  music,  drawing,  enjoying  nature,  holding  inter- 


io8 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


course  with  simple,  good  people,  and  revealing  his  inmost  soul, 
and  all  his  joys  and  sorrows  to  a  single  friend.  He  writes  an 
ardent  and  passionate  style,  reflects  on  what  he  observes,  and  in 
talking  about  it  easily  grows  excited.  He  respects  religion,  but 
derives  no  support  therefrom.  He  thinks  of  God  as  a  loving,  piti¬ 
ful  Father,  and  he  is  full  of  love  for  his  fellow-men,  provided  they 
do  not  repel  him.  He  has  a  deep  sense  of  the  evil  in  the  world, 
and  he  wishes  that  men  would  not  arbitrarily  poison  the  pleasures 
which  are  granted  them.  His  over-sensitive  nature  is  easily  wounded, 
and  feeling  himself  to  be  misunderstood  by  those  around  him,  he  seeks 
solitude,  or  associates  with  children  and  people  of  the  lower  classes. 
He  follows  every  dictate  of  his  heart,  has  no  self-control  and  no 
energy,  lives  a  life  not  of  action  but  of  feeling,  and  like  a  true  child  of 
his  age,  prides  himself  on  his  wealth  of  sentiment.  With  all  these 
qualities  he  has  a  peculiar  attraction  for  people,  and  has  excited 
the  love  of  women  without  returning  it ;  now  it  is  his  fate  to  be  in 
love  himself,  but  without  any  prospect  of  possession,  for  he  loves  a 
woman  who  is  first  bride  then  wife  of  another.  This  is  the  rock 
on  which  he  is  wrecked ;  his  passion  consumes  him,  and  as  it  is  the 
strongest  force  in  his  nature,  and  he  is  impotent  to  fight  against  his 
feelings,  he  chooses  to  commit  suicide  rather  than  endure  a  life  of 
enforced  renunciation. 

Goethe  has  introduced  a  conversation  between  Werther  and 
Werther’s  Albert  on  the  subject  of  suicide.  Werther  considers 
suicide.  it  as  merely  the  result  of  an  incurable  disease,  and  in 
this  he  expresses  Goethe’s  own  view  of  the  matter.  In  this  book 
Goethe  gives  us  the  whole  pathology  of  the  disease  ;  we  are  meant 
to  observe  the  inner  disposition,  the  causes  and  the  symptoms,  and 
Gradual  de  to  ^°^ow  their  course  to  the  end.  The  change  which 
velopment  takes  place  in  Werther’s  mind,  the  slow  development 
of  the  cata-  0f  his  madness  is  carefully  traced  by  Goethe,  and  the 

stronliG 

catastrophe  is  prepared  for  with  great  skill,  the  excite¬ 
ment  being  gradually  worked  up  and  the  tension  increased. 
Throughout  the  book  Goethe  not  only  traces  the  natural  growth 
of  the  disease,  but  notes  the  outward  circumstances  which  contri¬ 
buted  to  its  development.  He  tells  us  that  Werther’s  attempt  to 
employ  himself  in  an  official  capacity  failed,  owing  to  an  unplea- 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe. 


109 

sant  superior,  and  to  the  offensive  and  slighting  treatment  which 
he  experienced  at  the  hands  of  the  aristocracy.  He  supposes  that 
Albert  and  Lotte  have  been  married  in  Werther’s  absence  ;  Lotte 
is  unhappy  in  her  marriage,  and  feels  herself  more  strongly  drawn 
to  Werther  than  before.  Werther  perceives  her  unhappiness,  and 
is  inclined  to  break  through  the  reserve  he  has  hitherto  maintained 
towards  her.  By  reading  aloud  to  her  long  passages  of  the 
mystical  poetry  of  Ossian  he  raises  himself  and  her  to  an  unnatural 
pitch  of  excitement;  this  clouds  his  reason  and  goads  his  feelings, 
till  he  loses  that  delicate  reserve  which  has  hitherto  characterised  all 
his  relations  with  Lotte ;  he  embraces  her,  and  she  tears  herself 
away  and  refuses  to  see  him  again ;  the  next  day  he  shoots  him¬ 
self.  Goethe  assumes  that  Werther  remains  to  the  end  the  same 
moral  man,  that  he  reproaches  himself  bitterly  for  having  disturbed 
a  marriage,  and  hopes  by  his  death  to  reconcile  husband  and  wife 
to  each  other  again. 

The  description  of  Werther’s  end,  as  well  as  the  experiences  of 
his  short  period  of  active  life,  is  exactly  borrowed  Realism  of 
from  the  fate  of  young  Jerusalem.  This  close  ad-  ‘  Werther.’ 
herence  to  reality  was  a  guarantee  of  high  poetical  truth  and 
probability.  But  this  is  not  the  only  respect  in  which  Goethe 
does  his  utmost  to  strengthen  the  impression  that  we  are  here 
dealing  with  a  story  taken  from  fact.  Till  near  the  end  he  does 
not  speak  himself,  but  lets  Werther  speak.  He  makes  a  pretence 
of  publishing  Werther’s  long  journal,  written  by  way  of  letters  to  an 
intimate  friend ;  occasionally  he  adds  a  remark,  or  pretends  that  he 
is  suppressing  something,  and  only  takes  up  the  narrative  himself 
where  we  must  suppose  that  Werther’s  letters  to  his  friend  cease. 
But  even  then  he  apparently  has  access  to  Werther’s  last  memor¬ 
anda,  and  the  remainder  he  pretends  to  have  learnt  from  the  mouth 
of  Lotte,  Albert,  and  others.  Goethe  treats  the  somewhat  exag¬ 
gerated  and  over-strained  sentiment  with  the  firm  and  skilful  hand 
of  an  artist,  and  by  his  clear  arrangement  of  the  story  helps  us  to 
take  it  in  at  a  glance.  It  is  not  very  long  in  itself,  and  falls  natur¬ 
ally  into  two  periods,  the  one  prior,  the  other  subsequent  to 
Werther's  abortive  career  as  a  public  official.  In  each  of  the  two 
divisions  into  which  the  story  thus  falls  we  may  easily  distinguish 


no 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch«  XI. 


three  stages  :  first  we  meet  Werther  alone,  then  Lotte  comes  upon 
the  scene,  and  then  Albert ;  in  the  second  part  Werther  is  absent 
at  the  beginning,  then  he  returns,  and  finally,  when  the  story  is 
approaching  its  end,  narrative  takes  the  place  of  the  letters.  Every 
letter  bears  its  date,  and  the  story  lasts  exactly  from  the  4th  of  May 
1771  to  Christmas  1772. 

Novels  in  epistolary  form  had  been  written  before  Goethe’s  time, 
Novels  in  particular  by  Richardson  and  Rousseau.  But 
epistolary  whereas  till  then  authors  had  preferred  to  make  a 
form.  number  of  people  correspond,  Goethe  on  the  con¬ 
trary  only  lets  the  hero  speak.  By  this  means  our  attention  is  en¬ 
gaged  more  strongly,  and  focussed  on  the  hero,  and  in  one  respect 
the  task  was  thus  rendered  easier,  since  the  letters  could  all  be 
written  in  the  same  style,  whereas  the  older  form  required  as  many 
styles  as  there  were  writers ;  but  in  another  respect  the  difficulty 
was  increased,  inasmuch  as  the  out-pourings  of  one  mind  are 
much  more  liable  to  become  monotonous  than  the  utterances  of 
many.  Goethe  surmounted  this  difficulty  with  the  greatest  ease,  and 
by  his  ‘Werther’  introduced  a  new  style  of  letter-writing  into 
German  literature. 

We  possess  German  letters  dating  as  early  as  the  thirteenth  cen- 
German  tury.  Ulrich  von  Lichtenstein’s  memoirs  contain  a  note 
Letter-  addressed  to  him  by  the  lady  of  his  heart,  a  mere  dry 

writing.  report  of  events.  In  the  fourteenth  century  we  may  find 

the  correspondence  between  a  pious  nun  and  her  father-confessor, 
who  interchange  presents  and  spiritual  experiences,  marked 
occasionally  by  sentimental  outbursts.  At  a  later  epoch  we  find 
sterility  of  imagination  helping  itself  out  by  external  assistance  ;  for 
instance,  in  a  love-letter,  if  a  tender  phrase  was  not  at  command,  a 
drawing  of  a  heart  pierced  by  an  arrow  might  serve  as  a  sub¬ 
stitute.  Model  letter-writers  in  the  early  years  of  printing  suggest 
forms  of  address  such  as  :  ‘  Sweet,  subtle,  benevolent,  well- 

conducted,  most  dear  lady.’  We  find  Luther  writing  to  his  ‘  dear 
Luther’s  Sonikin,  Hansichen,’  or  to  his  wife  as  his  ‘kind, 
Letters.  dear  master,  Frau  Katherine  von  Bora.’  In  his 
letters  to  his  boy  he  describes  Heaven  in  childish  fashion  as 
a  beautiful  fairy  garden,  and  he  greets  his  wife  with  all  kinds 


Ch.  XI.] 


Herder  and  Goethe. 


in 


of  chaff,  and  gives  her  a  very  amusing  account  of  his  travelling 
adventures,  expressing  everything  in  quaint  and  original  language, 
but  without  a  trace  of  artificiality.  In  fact,  Luther  fills  his  letters 
with  his  own  heartiness,  vigour  and  cheery  humour,  and  this 
popular  and  original  epistolary  style  started  by  him  was  never 
quite  lost ;  the  tradition  was  reserved  down  to  the  Duchess 
Elisabeth  Charlotte  of  Orleans  (see  vol.  i,  p.  374)  and  to  Goethe’s 
mother,  though  side  by  side  with  it  the  intolerable  bombast  and 
foreign  affectations  of  the  seventeenth  century  were  fostered  by 
polite  letter- writers,  and  through  their  influence  ultimately  became  the 
ruling  fashion.  In  the  eighteenth  century,  on  the  contrary,  efforts 
were  made  to  attain  a  natural  and  yet  cultivated  style.  Madame  de 
Sevignd  was  considered  the  great  model  in  letter-writing.  Frau 
Gottsched’s  letters  show  a  roguish  grace  which  her  comedies  would 
not  have  led  one  to  expect  from  her.  Gellert  reduced  the  new  ideal  of 
letter-writing  to  a  theory,  and  instructed  his  fellow-countrymen  most 
thoroughly  as  to  how  they  were  to  set  about  it  in  order  to  appear 
as  natural  as  possible ;  they  were  to  follow  their  own  disposition, 
to  strive  after  variety  of  style,  to  seek  their  matter  near  at  hand,  to 
make  reference  to  the  small  circumstances  under  which  they  were 
writing,  and  so  on.  He  found  in  young  Goethe  a  Goethe’s 

willing  pupil,  who  at  once  grasped  the  matter  with  a  Letters, 

boldness  which  far  exceeded  the  good  Gellert’s  intentions.  His 
first  student’s  letter  from  Leipzig  rises  to  a  dramatic  level  in  its 
lively  and  graphic  representation  of  what  is  passing  at  the  moment 
he  writes.  This  dramatic  enhancement  of  reality,  these  true  re¬ 
flections  of  his  passing  moods  characterize  all  his  style  of 
youthful  letters,  and  form  the  basis  on  which  he  ‘Werther.' 
worked  with  conscious  art  in  ‘Werther,’  arranging  and  leading  up  to 
definite  effects.  But  he  took  care  not  to  entertain  his  readers  solely 
with  the  feelings  of  his  hero.  A  number  of  people  appear  in  the 
book,  who  are  all  briefly  characterized.  Pictures  of  nature  and  of 
human  life  are  faithfully  executed,  and  everything  is  made  to  bear 
upon  the  hero,  and  reveal  to  us  his  views,  tastes,  and  character. 
Goethe  informs  us  what  Werther  read;  the  Old  Testament, 
Homer,  Goldsmith,  Klopstock,  Ossian,  are  his  favourite  reading, 
as  they  were  also  Goethe’s.  Shakspeare  does  not  seem  to  have 


1 1  2 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch  XT. 


attracted  him,  for  Shakspeare  would  break  in  too  rudely  upon  the 
world  of  such  a  sentimentalist.  But  these  other  writers  with  their 
idyllic  and  emotional  elements  determine  Werther’ s  own  views  and 
interests,  such  as  we  find  them  reflected  in  his  letters.  He  would 
like  to  establish  patriarchal  and  Homeric  conditions  of  life  around 
him ;  nature  and  natural  characters  he  describes  in  terms  of  deep 
affection,  finding  in  them  inexhaustible  variety.  But  he  does  not 
show  us  idylls  only  ;  his  embittered  heart  can  spur  him  on  to  satire, 
and  he  can  also  recognise  the  poetic  side  of  the  prose  of  everyday 
life.  He  describes  Lotte  knitting  a  stocking,  or  cutting  bread  for 
her  younger  brothers  and  sisters,  and  himself  playing  with  the 
children  or  helping  Lotte  to  gather  fruit.  He  gives  us  a  picture  of  a 
rustic  ball  and  its  break-up  by  a  storm.  He  works  in  ordinary,  un¬ 
interesting  conversations,  and  introduces  us  into  various  households  ; 
and  all  his  experience  is  drawn  from  the  sphere  of  middle-class  life, 
the  sphere  in  which  Gellert’s  comedies  generally  move,  and  which, 
one  would  ihink,  could  not  possibly  offer  any  elements  of  romance. 

By  his  ‘  Werther’  Goethe  introduced  a  new  phase  into  German 
_  _  .  sentiment;  this  kind  of  sentiment  had  been  fostered  by 

Werther  on  pietism  and  by  the  pastoral  poetry  of  the  seventeenth 

German  century,  and  already  in  Philipp  von  Zesen  we  find  an 
Sentiment.  attempt  to  impart  a  sentimental  colouring  to  middle- 
class  life;  but  Goethe  was  the  first  to  succeed  in  an  endeavour  which  a 
hundred  and  thirty  years  before  seemed  a  half  comic,  half  pathetic 
enterprise.  He  had  first  to  divest  Klopstock’s  characters  of  their 
saintly  halo,  and  Gessner’s  shepherds  and  Weisse’s  rustics  of  their 
unreality.  He  succeeded  in  making  his  descriptions  of  nature  more 
animated  and  varied  than  those  of  Haller,  Kleist,  and  Klopstock,  and 
his  bourgeois  characters  and  bourgeois  sentiments  more  interesting 
than  those  of  Gellert  or  Rabener,  by  exhibiting  them  as  they  ap¬ 
peared  in  the  mind  of  an  ardent  youth,  who  had  acquired  the  power 
of  faithful  delineation  in  the  school  of  plastic  art.  Werther’s  exalted 
sentiment  and  ever-ready  reflections  are  combined  with  genre- 
pictures  and  landscapes  in  the  style  of  the  Dutch  school.  The 
whole  gives  the  impression  of  a  realistic  sentimentality,  whose  ideal 
is  to  be  found  in  the  housewifely  Lotte,  cheerful  and  active  in  her 
homely  life,  and  yet  capable  of  elevated  thoughts  and  feelings. 


Herder  and  Goethe. 


Ch.  XI  ] 


1J3 


Revolution¬ 
ary  tenden¬ 
cies  and 
arbitrary 
style  in 
‘Werther.’ 


Though  Rousseau  is  not  mentioned  among  Werther’s  favourite 
authors,  perhaps  owing  to  Goethe’s  hostility  to  French  ,  Werther’ 
literature  at  that  time,  or  to  deeper  causes,  yet  and 
Rousseau’s  influence  really  exercised  great  power  Rousseau. 
over  the  production  of  *  Werther.’  No  book  then  published  was  so 
akin  to  ‘  Werther  ’  as  Rousseau’s  ‘  Nouvelle  Hdoise  ;’  the  French 
romance  presents  a  similar  hero,  similar  ideas  and  incidents,  similar 
language,  and  only  far  inferior  art.  In  ‘  Werther,’  too,  as  in  all 
Rousseau’s  writings,  there  breathes  a  truly  revolutionary  spirit. 
Goethe’s  novel  is  a  protest  against  a  state  of  society  which  cannot 
make  worthy  use  of  the  brilliant  talents  of  an  ardent 
youth,  against  inequality  of  classes  and  the  haughtiness 
of  the  nobility,  as  contrasted  with  Werther’s  sympathy 
with  the  people,  against  the  ruling  code  of  morals, 
which  looked  on  suicide  far  otherwise  than  with  mere 
pity;  it  is  a  protest  against  conventional  pedantry  of 
style  and  strict  aesthetic  rules,  though  Goethe  himself  does  not 
break  any  established  rule  in  the  work,  and,  finally,  it  is  a 
protest  against  the  dominant  mode  of  expression,  for  the  author 
expresses  himself  not  only  with  freedom  but  with  arbitrary  licence. 
By  his  drama  of  ‘  Gotz  ’  Goethe  had  already  questioned  the  existing 
stage  arrangements,  but  now  even  the  established  grammar  was 
not  safe.  The  unity  of  the  literary  language,  won  by  toilsome 
effort,  was  imperilled;  the  grace  and  perfection  of  form,  which  had 
been  attained  thirty  years  before  in  the  ‘Bremer  Beitrage/  now 
gave  place  to  personal  caprice,  provincialisms,  phrases  forcible  but 
colloquial,  an  elliptical  style,  and  a  novel  mode  of  spelling. 

Once  more  a  revolution  disturbed  the  quiet  and  steady  develop¬ 
ment  of  German  aesthetic  culture,  in  the  same  way  as  Influence  of 
the  Reformation  had  interfered  with  the  Renaissance  <werther’? 
movement,  in  the  same  way  as  Opitz  had  unneces-  on  German 
sarily  broken  with  the  past  and  Gottsched  had  despised  literature, 
the  connection  with  the  popular  drama.  It  was  Goethe  this  time 
who  denied  all  reverence  for  established  rules,  and  carried  with 
him  ail  young  and  impetuous  spirits.  But  this  movement  differed 
essentially  from  the  older  revolutionary  convulsions.  The  inter¬ 
ruption  did  not  last  so  long  this  time,  and  the  return  was  not  so 


VOL.  II. 


i 


U4 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great . 


[Ch.  XI. 


difficult.  The  leader  of  the  revolution  himself  returned  almost  im¬ 
mediately  to  the  old  lines  of  development,  and  subsequently  went 
far  in  reaction,  but  he  could  not  quite  efface  the  traces  of  his 
youthful  performances.  ‘  Werther’  could,  indeed,  be  easily  purged 
of  its  faults  and  transformed  into  a  perfect  work  of  art,  but  it  was 
impossible  to  do  the  same  with  ‘  Gotz ;  ’  with  all  its  beauties  and 
with  all  its  depth  of  feeling  it  remained  what  it  w'as,  a  work  of 
caprice  and  a  bad  example  to  posterity,  a  standing  encouragement 
to  all  young  poets  who  thought  themselves  geniuses,  but  disdained 
the  trouble  of  learning. 


The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati. 

‘  Storm  and  stress !  The  period  of  genius !  The  original 
geniuses  ! ’ — These  are  the  terms  which  are  used  in  praise  or  in 
The  lite  mockery  to  designate  the  German  literary  revolution 
rary  and  and  its  chief  leaders.  The  movement  was  a  poetic 
religious  and  religious  one.  The  literary  revolution  demanded 
revolution.  emancjpaqon  from  rules,  and  was,  in  its  political 

aspect,  a  movement  of  opposition  to  established  authorities ;  the 
religious  revolution  was  directed  against  the  so-called  enlightened 
school,  and  was  in  this  respect  conservative.  Both  movements 
apparently  failed.  The  poets  were  obliged  to  submit  themselves 
again  to  the  sway  of  rules,  and  their  political  declamations  had  not 
the  slightest  direct  effect ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  Illuminati  only 
became  bolder  and  more  radical  in  their  advances,  and  won  back  to 
their  side  a  few  of  their  most  decided  opponents.  Yet  the  chief  effect 
of  the  revolution  was,  after  all,  an  extraordinary  increase  of  poetic 
and  scientific  power,  and  the  wide  extension  of  literary  interests 
throughout  Germany ;  many  of  the  tendencies,  too,  which  could 
not  assert  themselves  for  the  present,  remained  dormant  and  awoke 
to  fresh  life  in  Romanticism. 

Lessing  had  only  just  produced  his  masterpiece  in  tragedy,  his 
‘Emilia  Galotti,’  when  Goethe’s  ‘Gotz’  appeared,  and  though 
unable  entirely  to  supplant  Lessing’s  piece,  yet  considerably 
thwarted  its  influence.  ‘  Gotz  ’  and  ‘  Emilia  ’  reigned  side  by  side, 
and  we  have  many  opportunities  of  observing  how  the  young 


ch.  xi.]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati. 


Lenz. 


Klinger. 


dramatists  of  this  period  formed  their  style  on  both ;  but  ‘  Gotz  ’ 
exercised  the  greater  influence  of  the  two ;  chivalrous  dramas 
became  all  the  fashion,  and  Shakspeare  was  copied  with  untiring 
zeal.  The  extravagance  of  ‘  Stella  ’  also  attracted  imitators,  while 
the  less  outrageous  ‘  Clavigo  ’  was  more  or  less  left  out  of  account. 
German  provinces  which  had  as  yet  played  little  part  in  modern 
literature  now  sent  forth  their  representatives,  and  some  of  the 
violent  Shakspearians,  such  as  Lenz,  Klinger,  and  Wagner,  be¬ 
longed  to  the  circle  of  Goethe’s  acquaintance  in  Strassburg  and 
Frankfort.  Lenz,  a  German  Russian,  who  ended 
his  days  in  madness,  often  reveals-  in  his  short  songs 
and  tales  a  strain  of  pure  and  pathetic  poetry ;  in  his  dramas  he 
allowed  himself  the  most  outrageous  extravagances,  but  even  in 
them  we  here  and  there  light  on  a  cleverly-drawn  character,  a 
simple  and  innocent  girl,  a  pedant  or  a  kind-hearted  reveller. 
Klinger,  a  Frankfort  man  of  low  origin,  began  with  confused  and 
faulty  productions,  dramas  full  of  bombastic  declama¬ 
tion,  coarse  language,  ravings  against  tyrants,  and 
such  naturalism  as  we  meet  with  in  Rousseau.  Subsequently  he 
abandoned  these  revolutionary  extravagances,  and  having  grown 
up  into  a  composed  and  rational  man,  profited  by  experience, 
and  ended  as  a  high  Russian  dignitary.  Heinrich  h.  L. 
Leopold  Wagner  of  Strassburg  drew  scenes  and  Wagner, 
characters  from  middle-class  life  with  a  rude  but  effective  realism. 
Friedrich  Muller  of  Kreuznach,  poet  and  painter,  and  Friedrich 
hence  designated  ‘  Painter  Miiller,’  turned  his  attention  Muller, 
to  classical  and  to  popular  subjects,  to  Genovefa,  Faust  and 
Niobe.  He  carried  realistic  treatment  into  his  idylls,  which  are 
some  of  them  faithful  descriptions  of  the  life  of  the  common 
people  in  the  Palatinate.  Count  Torring,  of  Munich, 
by  his  ‘  Agnes  Bernauerin,’  prepared  the  way  for 
the  chivalrous  drama  in  Bavaria;  and  in  Swabia  there  arose  a 
political  dramatist,  who  carried  on  the  revolutionary  tendencies  of 
‘Gotz’  and  ‘  Emilia  Galotti  ’  with  still  greater  energy:  Friedrich 
Schiller  (see  Chap.  XII.  §  3). 

Political  interests  had  struck  deep  root  in  Swabia.  The  worthy 
John  Jacob  Moser,  counsel  to  the  Wurtemberg  Parliament,  boldly 


Torring. 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


1 16 


opposed  princely  despotism,  and  his  son,  Friedrich  Carl  von  Moser, 

exerted  his  influence  as  a  minister  and  writer  in  favour  of  enlight- 

Political  ened  systems  of  government,  upholding  the  interests 

writers.  of  the  state  as  against  the  selfishness  of  kings.  We 

The  two  j)ave  already  noticed  the  works  of  Wieland  and  Abbt 
Mosers  • 

dealing  with  political  subjects.  Among  journalists, 

Wilhelm  Ludwig  Weckherlin  ridiculed  the  constitution  of  the 
Imperial  towns.  The  journalist,  poet,  and  musician,  Christian 
Christian  Schubart,  a  true  Bohemian  in  disposition,  but  also 
Schubart.  an  ardent  worshipper  of  Frederick  the  Great  and 
of  Klopstock,  was  at  once  a  German  and  Swabian  patriot;  he 
greeted  with  enthusiasm  all  the  productions  of  the  ‘  Storm  and 
Stress’  party,  and  sang  their  praises  in  newspaper  articles.  His 
best  wrok  is  to  be  found  in  his  popular  songs.  His  poem 
entitled  ‘  Ftirstengruft  ’  (The  Grave  of  Princes\  was  an  attack 
on  tyrants,  reproaching  them  with  their  crimes  against  humanity. 
Friedrich  Friedrich  Schiller,  at  that  time  a  military  surgeon  in 
Schiller.  Stuttgart,  became  a  disciple  of  his;  on  the  title-page 

of  his  first  play,  ‘  The  Robbers/  he  had  placed  the  figure  of  a  lion 
rampant,  with  the  motto,  ‘  In  Tyrannos/  and  he  put  the  following 
words  in  the  mouth  of  the  hero  of  the  piece  :  ‘  Put  me  at  the  head 
of  a  troop  of  such  fellows  as  myself,  and  Germany  shall  be  turned 
into  a  republic,  in  contrast  with  which  Sparta  and  Rome  shall  seem 
like  nunneries.’  These  people  of  Wiirtemberg  could  speak  of 
the  rule  of  tyrants  from  personal  acquaintance  ;  the  elder  Moser 
had  been  shut  up  for  five  years  in  the  fortress  of  Hohentwiel, 
Schubart  for  ten  years  in  that  of  Asperg,  both  unjustly  and  without 
trial,  only  because  it  was  the  duke’s  pleasure.  Schiller  might  well 
expect  the  same  fate,  and  therefore  took  refuge  in  flight.  The  iron 
despotism  which  weighed  upon  his  country  and  upon  himself  per¬ 
sonally,  would  necessarily  instil  revolutionary  sentiments  into  the 
mind  of  this  disciple  of  Rousseau,  who  was  panting  for  nature 
and  liberty.  Adopting  a  motto  derived  from  Hippocrates,  he 
recommended  blood  and  iron  as  the  best  remedies  for  a  corrupt 
Schiller’s  world.  The  hero  of  his  first  drama,  the  enthu- 
‘  Rauber.’  siastic  young  robber,  Moor,  like  Goethe’s  Gotz,  has 
recourse  to  force  on  his  own  responsibility.  He  has  all  the 


Ch.  XI.]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati.  1 17 

feelings  of  a  Werther,  and,  like  Werther,  he  falls  foul  of  society. 
Werther  turns  the  destroying  weapon  against  himself,  but  Moor 
directs  it  against  society.  He  is  a  rebel,  like  the  Satan  of  Milton  and 
Klopstock,  and  a  vagabond,  like  Goethe’s  Crugantino,  but  while 
love  and  reconciliation  lead  Crugantino  back  to  the  bosom  of  his 
family,  the  shameful  intrigues  of  an  unnatural  brother  turn  Moor  into 
a  robber  and  a  murderer.  Hostile  brothers  had  already  been  depicted 
by  Fielding  in  romance,  and  by  Leisewitz  and  Klinger  in  tragedy  ; 
the  two  latter  had  introduced  fratricide  upon  the  stage  itself,  and 
Gessner  had  written  a  patriarchal  romance  based  on  the  story  of 
Cain  and  Abel ;  but  Schiller  far  surpasses  these  writers  in  power 
in  the  grand  scene  where  the  criminal,  in  fear  of  the  avengers  of 
his  crime,  pronounces  and  carries  out  his  own  sentence.  The 
poet  shows,  on  the  whole,  dramatic  talent  of  the  first  order.  It  is 
true  that  he  lays  on  the  colours  too  thick,  that  he  fills  the  dialogue 
with  bombastic  exaggeration,  that  in  trying  to  be  forcible  he  occa¬ 
sionally  lapses  into  coarseness,  that  he  fails  to  make  the  connection 
between  action  and  character  sufficiently  apparent,  that  he  consist¬ 
ently  violates  the  laws  of  probability,  and  lastly,  that  the  plot  is 
clumsy  and  the  only  woman’s  part  a  failure; — still,  in  spite  of  all 
these  defects,  he  manages  to  retain  the  attention  of  his  audience 
from  beginning  to  end;  contrast,  which  can  alone  animate  dia¬ 
logue,  is  never  wanting,  nor  contlict,  the  essence  of  dramatic  action. 
The  action  almost  always  progresses  rapidly  and  impetuously,  and 
the  power  of  single  scenes  affects  readers  and  spectators  as  much 
to-day  as  when  the  play  first  appeared.  Schiller’s  contemporaries 
not  only  applauded  the  tragic  talent  and  the  entrancing  interest  of 
the  play,  but  adopted  the  robber  Moor,  as  they  had  done  young 
Werther,  as  a  kind  of  ideal.  There  was  no  occasion  for  Schiller 
to  appeal  in  self-defence  to  the  authority  of  Rousseau,  who 
commended  Plutarch  for  having  chosen  grand  criminals  as  the 
subjects  of  his  literary  portraits ;  there  was  no  need  for  him  to  cite 
the  example  of  the  noble  robber  Roque  in  ‘  Don  Quixote.’  His 
audience  was  quite  ready,  without  any  such  authorities,  to  accord  a 
sympathetic  reception  to  the  attractive  robber  Moor.  The  public 
had  learnt  with  Goethe  to  excuse  a  suicide  and  to  forgive  a  Don 
Juan,  with  Heinrich  Leopold  Wagner,  to  bestow  pity  on  a  child- 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


1 18 


murderess ;  Lessing  had  taught  them  to  reverence  noble  humanity 
in  Jews  and  Mohammedans;  it  was  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  they 
should  now  be  so  ready  to  recognise  the  same  humanity  even  in 
a  robber. 

Schiller’s  play  appeared  in  1781,  eight  years  after  1  Gotz,’  two 
years  after  Lessing’s  ‘  Nathan.’  Two  other  tragedies  soon  followed, 
‘  FiescoJ  in  1783,  ‘  Kabale  und  Liebe  ’  in  1784.  The  scene  of  the 
Schiller’s  former  is  laid  in  Genoa,  of  the  latter  in  modern  Ger- 
‘  Fiesco,’  many.  In  ‘Fiesco’  we  have  a  revolution  which  fails 
1783.  jn  thg  moment  of  success  through  the  death  of  the 
leader.  The  play  brings  before  us  the  brutal  tyranny  of  Gianettino 
Doria,  the  clever  dissembling  and  marvellous  fascination  of  Fiesco, 
the  rude  Republicanism  ofVerrina,  the  base  motives  of  the  lower 
conspirators ;  it  is  a  play  of  intrigue  and  crime,  of  plots  and 
counter-plots,  such  as  the  poet  had  no  personal  knowledge  of,  so  that 
he  had  to  draw  upon  tradition  and  his  own  imagination  in  repre¬ 
senting  them.  The  central  figure  is  an  ambitious  politician,  to 
whom  the  author  attributes  fits  of  devotion  to  the  public  welfare  in 
order  to  make  him  more  attractive,  although  he  thereby  violates 
the  consistency  of  his  character. 

In  ‘  Intrigue  and  Love  ’  the  interest  centres  round  a  pair  of 
Schiller’s  l°vers  w^°  are  ruined  by  class-prejudice ;  it  pictures 

‘Kabale  the  well-known  misery  of  the  smaller  German  states 

und  at  that  time,  the  Sultan-like  prince,  the  all-powerful 

Liebe.  favourite,  the  miserable  court,  the  scoundrelly  minister 

and  his  rascally  tools,  the  immorality  of  the  nobles  and  their  haughty 
scorn  of  the  bourgeois  class,  the  extortion  practised  towards 
the  people,  the  shameful  selling  of  soldiers  to  foreign  rulers,  the 
arbitrariness  of  justice — all  features  drawn  from  sad  reality,  which 
the  poet  could  either  observe  in  his  own  country  or  learn  of 
from  reliable  sources.  The  obvious  purpose  of  the  play  was  to 
strengthen  the  hatred  against  oppressors  and  excite  pity  for  the 
poor  and  innocent  victims.  It  was  no  wonder  that  ‘  Intrigue  and 
Love’  met  with  a  far  warmer  reception  than  ‘  Fiesco.’  As  regards 
artistic  merit,  the  two  pieces  are  barely  on  a  level  with  the 
‘  Robbers.’  The  ideas,  however,  which  had  been  first  mooted  in 
‘  Emilia  Galotti  ’  and  ‘  Gotz  ’  had  ripened  to  maturity  in  these 


v- 


s'-  '*“’1 


V* 


Ch.  xi.]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati. 


11 9 


Gottingen. 


two  plays,  which  embody  the  very;  essence  of  the  poetry  of  the 
‘  Storm  and  Stress  ’  epochs  The  revolutionary  party  in  literature 
were,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  the  party  of  opposition  in  politics. 
They  no  longer  kept  up  the  pretence  of  attacking  Sclliller’s 
Italian  princes  when  they  really  meant  to  attack  revolution  - 
German  ones,  but  boldly  knocked  at  the  castle-gates  of  ary  tenden- 
the  petty  German  sovereigns.  On  the  eve  of  the  French 
Revolution,  and  while  North  America  was  fighting  for  its  freedom, 
the  old  Roman  ideals  of  Republican  glory  stirred  in  the  hearts  of 
German  youths.  Gottsched  had  at  an  earlier  time  praised  the  stoical 
suicide  of  Cato,  and  now  Brutus,  the  assassin  of  Caesar,  became 
the  hero  of  these  ardent  spirits,  and  was  held  up  as  a  worthy 
example. 

In  Gottingen,  political  connection  with  England1  naturally  sug¬ 
gested  comparisons  between  the  two  countries,  and 
sharpened  men’s  judgment ;  there,  from  the  year  1776 
onward,  Professor  Schlozer  published  his  ‘  Correspondence,’  subse¬ 
quently  known  as  the  ‘  Staatsanzeigen,’  a  political  paper  which 
brought  existing  abuses  to  light,  and  soon  became  the  terror  of 
petty  German  tyrants.  In  1772  a  few  enthusiastic  Gottingen 
students  formed  a  poetic  brotherhood,  which  they  called  the  ‘Hain’ 
and  from  which  they  anticipated  extraordinary  results.  The 
They  assumed  each  the  name  of  some  ancient  bard,  ‘  Hain.’ 
swore  eternal  friendship  to  one  another,  glorified  God,  the  Father- 
land  and  virtue  and  venerated  Klopstock  almost  as  a  deity. 
They  hated  the  French  nation,  French  poetry,  and  the  Frenchified 
school  of  German  poets,  with  its  chief  representative — the  ‘mur¬ 
derer  of  innocence  ’  as  they  termed  him — Wieland.  They  prattled 
of  liberty,  despised  the  slaves  and  parasites  of  courts,  Klopstock 
and  set  up  the  Swiss  hero  Tell  by  the  side  of  heads  the 
Brutus,  Arminius,  and  Klopstock.  In  their  drinking-  Gottingen 
songs  they  enumerated  the  crimes  of  sovereigns  and  brotllerllood* 
pictured  future  battles  in  which  they  would  be  avenged  on  them, 
or  imagined  the  hour  of  triumph  when  tyrants  should  have  been 


1  Gottingen  belongs  to  the  Duchy  of  Hannover,  which,  by  the  accession  of 
George  I,  was  united  with  England.  The  University  of  Gottingen  was  founded 
in  1733  by  George  II. 


120 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


Boie. 


swept  from  the  earth.  Klopstock  gave  his  blessing  to  the  move¬ 
ment.  He  had  a  short  time  before  made  a  collection  of  his  Odes 
and  completed  his  1  Messiah/  and  he  thought  the  time  had 
now  come  for  him  to  set  himself  upon  the  throne  of  German 
poetry.  The  members  of  the  ‘  Hain  ’  were  to  disperse  themselves 
through  Germany,  and  to  be  his  lieutenants.  The  Statute-Book  of 
his  new  kingdom  was  to  be  his  own  foolish  Art  of  Poetry,  published 
in  1774  under  the  title  of  ‘  Gelehrtenrepublik/  in  which  he  treated 
most  contemptuously  the  hitherto  prevalent  theory  of  poetry.  But 
sensible  men,  who  had  not  yet  quite  died  out  in  Germany,  laughed 
at  the  whole  thing;  the  new  Klopstock  kingdom  had  no  duration, 
and  the  Gottingen  Brotherhood,  as  such,  exercised  no  influence  on 
the  further  development  of  German  poetry ;  it  was  only  through 
the  medium  of  a  few  able  writers  among  its  members  that  it  pro¬ 
duced  any  effect  at  all. 

Heinrich  Christian  Boie  was  the  oldest,  maturest,  and  most 
moderate  member  of  the  society;  he  produced  little 
himself,  but  indirectly,  as  an  editor,  he  rendered  good 
services  to  the  literary  life  of  Germany.  In  1769  he  started  the 
‘  Musenalmanach  *  as  a  magazine  for  lyric  poetry,  and  in  1776 
the  ‘  Deutsches  Museum,’  an  excellent  monthly  paper. 

Martin  Miller,  of  Ulm,  began  as  a  lyric  poet,  but  soon  took  to 
Martin  novel-writing,  and  by  his  ‘  Siegwart,  a  Convent-story/ 
Miller.  he  drew  many  tears  from  the  eyes  of  sentimentalists. 
The  consumptive  and  short-lived  Holty,  in  his  lyrics  full  of 
gentle  contemplation  of  nature  and  life,  reminds  us  of 
Kleist,  the  author  of  ‘  Spring  ’  and  of  ‘  Irin.’ 

The  two  Counts  Stolberg  are  always  mentioned  together,  and 
The  two  also  published  their  works  jointly ;  but  the  younger 
Stolbergs.  brother,  Fritz,  the  translator  of  the  Iliad,  of  ^Eschylus 
and  Ossian,  alone  attained  to  any  great  distinction.  He  was  an 
aristocrat  through  and  through,  in  his  extravagances  no  less  than 
in  his  conversion  to  the  Catholic  faith,  in  his  stormy,  blood-thirsty 
odes  against  tyrants  as  well  as  in  his  high-sounding  but  occasionally 
awkward  hexameters.  From  his  youth  upwards  he  felt  a  profound 
need  of  worshipping  something  above  himself,  be  it  Homer  or 
Nature,  the  heroism  of  his  ancestors  or  the  majestic  grandeur  of  the 


Holty. 


Ch.  xi.]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati. 


12 1 


Voss. 


sea.  Bat  this  imaginative  and  emotional  spirit,  who  needed  out¬ 
ward  sj'mbols  and  sought  for  a  firm  support  upon  which  to  lean, 
could  in  the  end  only  find  the  rest  which  he  longed  for  and  the 
ideal  society  which  he  loved  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and 
hef  saints. 

Johann  Heinrich  Voss,  Boie’s  brother-in-law,  was  the  best  of 
the  many  who  vied  with  one  another  in  creating 
a  German  Homer.  He,  like  Klopstock,  recognised 
the  value  of  German  syllables  for  metrical  and  rhythmic  pur¬ 
poses.  Of  his  manifold  and  in  part  mechanical  translations 
from  the  ancients,  none  come  up  to  his  Homer.  The  Odyssey 
appeared  in  1781,  the  Iliad,  with  a  revised  version  His 
of  the  Odyssey,  in  1793,  but  unfortunately  this  Homer, 

revision  was  not  an  improvement.  Frequent  attempts  had  already 
been  made  at  translating  Homer,  and  in  the  eighteenth  century 
the  German  versions  of  the  two  great  Greek  epics  became  more 
numerous  than  ever.  Bodmer  had  produced  an  uncouth  transla¬ 
tion,  Fritz  Stolberg  a  more  successful  one,  but  Voss  surpassed  all 
his  predecessors  in  this  field.  His  version  is  natural  and  straightfor¬ 
ward,  neither  too  exalted  nor  too  commonplace  in  tone,  and  repro¬ 
duces  to  a  reasonable  extent  the  style  of  the  original ;  the  Homeric 
formulas  and  epithets  are  successfully  preserved,  and  the  whole 
work  is  one  of  devoted  industry  and  serious  study,  resting  through¬ 
out  on  a  clear  appreciation  of  old  Greek  conditions  of  life.  Voss 
had  thoroughly  satisfied  his  countrymen,  but  not  himself ;  he 
wanted  to  improve  his  work  still  more.  Accordingly,  he  carried 
his  faithfulness  to  the  original  too  far,  and  thus  spoilt  the  Iliad 
from  the  first  and  the  Odyssey  in  the  later  versions.  Voss  was  a 
Mecklenburger  of  plebeian  origin,  the  grandson  of  an  emancipated 
serf ;  he  had  seen  with  his  own  eyes  the  evils  of  serf-  His 
dom,and  his  poems  against  tyrants,  exaggerated  though  original 
they  may  seem,  rest  on  deeply-rooted  convictions.  poems. 

His  whole  life  long  he  was  in  politics  and  religion  an  uncom¬ 
promising  Liberal.  His  idylls,  written  partly  in  Low-German, 
tell  of  the  sufferings  of  the  people;  they  have  nothing  to  do  with 
Arcadian  shepherds  or  with  Gessner’s  drawing-room  dolls,  but 
picture  the  German  peasant  as  he  was,  but  yet  not  with  the  crude 


722 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Cb.  XT. 


naturalism  of  the  painter-poet  Muller;  Voss  was  saved  from  that 
by  his  classical  culture,  and  by  the  classical  hexametric  form  in 
which  he  wrrote.  Voss  drew  materials  for  his  idylls  and  songs  not 
only  from  rustic  but  from  German  middle-class  life,  the  sphere 
in  which  he  himself  lived,  and  in  whose  domestic  interests  and 
simple  pleasures  he  took  such  delight.  Voss,  like  Goethe,  united 
d:light  in  the  Homeric  world  with  the  German  love  of  domesticity; 
but  he  did  not  always  succeed  in  raising  the  every-day  prosaic  life 
which  he  chose  as  his  theme  into  the  sphere  of  pure  poetry,  and 
more  beautiful  idylls  than  he  ever  wrote  are  to  be  found  in  his  wife 
Ernestine’s  records  of  his  and  her  life,  of  their  intercourse  with  Fritz 
Stolberg,  of  the  time  of  Voss’s  first  schoolmastership,  and  of  their 
poor  little  vie?iagc. 

All  the  band  of  Gottingen  friends  found  a  common  sphere  of 
The  Got-  labour  in  lyric  poetry,  and  in  their  hands  German  lyric 
tingen  poets  poetry  acquired  new  forces.  Though  all  the  members 
all  lyrical.  tpe  Gottingen  brotherhood  tried  their  hand  at  clas¬ 
sical  rhymeless  odes  after  Klopstock’s  model,  yet  their  strength  lay 
really  in  rhymed  popular  songs,  and  their  most  successful  pro¬ 
ductions  of  this  kind,  when  set  to  simple  attractive  melodies,  spread 
quickly  through  the  length  and  breadth  of  Germany.  The  bards 
of  the  ‘  Hain’  continued  the  work  of  Christian  Felix  Vl^isse, 
while  in  South  Germany  Schubart,  and  to  a  certain  extent  Maler 
Muller,  laboured  in  the  same  direction.  But  their  lyric  poetry  was 
mostly  of  the  quiet  kind,  describing  not  action,  but  passive  emotion 
of  some  kind ;  the  more  stirring  and  dramatic  poetry  such  as  Herder 
demanded  and  Goethe  created  was  only  represented  in  any  real 
excellence  in  one  of  the  poets  of  the  Gottingen  brotherhood,  in 
Burger’s  Gottfried  August  Burger.  In  him  alone  Herder’s 

ballads.  suggestions  really  bore  fruit.  The  English  Ballads 

were  to  him  what  Shakspeare  was  to  the  Strassburg  poets,  and  he 
became  a  most  enthusiastic  admirer  and  imitator  of  these  ballads  as 
well  as  of  the  old  German  songs  and  legends.  The  half-romantic, 
half-burlesque  ballad-form  which  Gleim  had  essayed,  and  which 
Burger  himself  cultivated  at  first,  became  later  on  in  his  hands  a 
serious  and  powerful  picture  of  character  and  emotion.  Terror, 
mystery,  and  gloom  had  special  attractions  for  him,  and  he  conjured 


Ch.  XL]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati. 


123 


up  ghosts  and  spirits  in  the  midst  of  that  enlightened  age.  His 
‘  Leonore'  is  perhaps  his  best  production  in  this  respect,  with 
its  powerful  picture  of  the  furious,  ghostly  ride  to  the  grave, 
in  the  course  of  which  it  gradually  becomes  clear  to  us  that  the 
anxiously  expected  lover,  the  soldier  who  comes  and  wakes  his 
sweetheart,  is  none  other  than  death.  This  poem  leaves  on  us 
to  some  degree  the  impression  of  an  unsolved  mystery;  all  the 
details  are  clear,  but  at  the  end  we  have  to  ask  ourselves  what  has 
really  happened  ;  was  it  a  dream  of  the  girl,  a  dream  in  which  she 
died,  or  did  the  ghost  really  appear  and  carry  her  character 
away?  Any  incidents  causing  anxious  suspense  of  his 
Burger  was  able  to  portray  with  masterly  skill,  for  poetry, 
instance,  a  noble  deed  done  in  the  face  of  danger,  or  secret 
enjoyment  with  sorrow  lurking  behind.  He  describes  with  great 
power  the  conflict  between  love  and  caste-prejudice,  faithfulness, 
unfaithfulness,  treachery,  the  dissolute  egotism  of  the  higher  classes 
and  the  despairing  rebellion  of  the  lower,  while  he  is  also  a  master 
of  humorous  narrative,  as  is  seen  in  his  poems,  ‘Frau  Schnips’ 
and  ‘  Kaiser  und  Abt/  In  his  love-poems  he  strives  after  action 
and  striking  situations,  but  his  imagination  failed  him  in  the 
world  of  tender  feeling,  and  he  tried  to  replace  the  want  of  poetic 
motives  by  high-sounding  words  and  empty  jingle,  which  spoils 
many  a  stanza  of  his  best  ballads.  He  ruined  his  life  by  pro¬ 
fligacy,  and  the  severe  form  in  which  he  sometimes  clothes 
passionate  feeling,  the  melody  of  his  sonnets  and  smooth  polish 
of  his  verses,  could  not  take  the  place  of  inward  nobility  of 
feeling. 

The  thought  of  a  genuine  revival  of  the  historical  and  literary 
past  of  Germany  animated  young  Goethe  during  R,evivai 
his  Strassburg  days,  and  the  same  spirit  stirred  in  the  of  early 
Gottingen  poets  and  through  the  whole  of  North  Ger-  German 
many.  As  early  as  1748  Bodmer  had  published  P°etry- 
specimens  from  the  Minnesingers,  in  1757  he  had  brought  out  a 
part  of  the  Nibelungenlied,  in  1758  and  1759  a  more  complete 
collection  of  the  Minnesingers,  and  till  1781,  till  just  before  his 
death,  he  continued  to  produce  editions  of  the  Middle  High-German 
poems.  Another  Swiss  writer,  Christian  Heinrich  Myller,  a  pupil 


124 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


of  Bodmer’s,  who  had  an  appointment  in  Berlin,  published  in  1784 
and  1785  the  whole  of  the  Nibelungenlied  and  the  most  important 
of  the  chivalrous  epics.  Lessing,  in  his  preface  to  Gleim’s  War- 
songs,  called  attention  to  the  Middle  High-German  poets,  of  whom 
he  continued  to  be  throughout  his  life  an  ardent  admirer.  Justus 
Moser  took  great  interest  in  the  Minnesingers.  About  the  time 
when  ‘  Gotz  ’  appeared,  this  enthusiasm  for  early  German  poetry 
was  at  its  strongest,  and  Biirger,  Voss,  Miller,  and  Holty  wrote 
Minnesongs,  in  which  they  imitated  the  old  German  lyric  poets. 
In  1773  Gleim  published  ‘Poems  after  the  Minnesingers/  and 
in  1779  ‘  Poems  after  Walther  von  der  Vogel weide/  Some  enthu¬ 
siasts  had  already  hailed  the  Nibelungenlied  as  the  German  Iliad, 
and  Burger,  who  vied  hard  with  the  rest,  but  without  much  success, 
in  turning  Homer  into  German,  insisted  on  dressing  up  the  Greek 
heroes  a  little  in  the  Nibelungen  style.  He  and  a  few  other 
poets  loved  to  give  their  ballads  a  chivalrous  character.  Fritz 
Stolberg  wrote  the  beautiful  song  of  a  German  boy,  beginning — 
‘Mein  Arm  wild  stark  und  gross  mein  Muth,  gib,  Vater,  mir 
ein  Schwert;’  and  the  song  of  the  old  Swabian  knight — ‘  Sohn, 
da  hast  du  meinen  Speer ;  meinem  Arm  wird  er  zu  schwer.’ 
Lessing’s  ‘  Nathan/  too,  appealed  to  this  enthusiasm  for  the  times  of 
chivalry,  and  must  have  strengthened  the  feeling.  An  historian 
like  the  Swiss,  Johannes  Muller  (see  Chap.  XIII.  §1),  began  to  show 
the  Middle  Ages  in  a  fairer  light,  and  even  to  ascribe  great  merits  to 
the  Papacy.  But  in  doing  so,  Johannes  Muller  was  only  following 
Herder’s  Me-  in  Herder’s  steps.  Herder,  while  at  Btickeburg,  had 
disevalism.  written  against  the  self-conceit  of  his  age,  its  pride  in 
its  enlightenment  and  achievements.  He  found  in  the  Middle  Ages 
the  realization  of  his  aesthetic  ideas,  namely,  strong  emotion,  stirring 
life  and  action,  everything  guided  by  feeling  and  instinct,  not  by 
morbid  thought,  religious  ardour  and  chivalrous  honour,  boldness 
His  in  love  and  strong  patriotic  feeling.  This  appreciation 
religious  of  mediaeval  times  went  with  Herder  handjn  hand 
revival.  with  a  stricter  form  of  religion.  He  gave  up  his  free- 
thinking  views ;  when  he  stood  in  the  pulpit,  and  still  more  when  he 
was  writing,  his  feelings  were  those  of  a  mystic  enthusiast.  Now, 
for  the  first  time,  the  full  fervour  of  his  soul  poured  itself  forth.  It 


Ch.  XI.]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati.  125 

was  only  in  uncompromising  opposition  to  the  so-called  enlighten¬ 
ment  of  the  age  that  he  could  find  satisfaction.  His  share  in  the 
literary  revolution  was  not  only  to  call  attention  to  the  popular 
sources  of  art,  not  only  to  sing  the  praises  of  Shakspeare  and 
Ossian  in  the  ‘  Letters  on  German  Style  and  Art,’  not  only  to 
influence  Goethe  and  Burger,  but,  above  all,  to  try  and  reanimate 
religion  by  proclaiming,  in  prophetic  and  enthusiastic  tones,  the 
worth  of  the  Bible  and  the  dignity  of  the  priestly  office.  His  style 
then  became  dithyrambic  and  highly  original,  full  of  words  arbi¬ 
trarily  coined,  and  of  phrases  fashioned  simply  for  force  and  effect. 
His  old  researches  on  the  origin  of  mythology  and  of  the  Hebraic 
legends  now  assumed  a  new  colour.  Was  not  this  primitive  poetry 
so  much  primitive  revelation  obscured,  and  was  it  not  his  mission  to 
interpretit?  Faith  founded  on  Biblical  Revelation  is  the  funda¬ 
mental  basis  of  preaching.  Away  with  the  slanders  of  the  Illu¬ 
minati,  who  dared  to  hint  that  the  priests  of  those  ancient  nations 
were  often  liars  and  deceivers  !  The  position  of  the  priests  should 
become  once  more  such  as  Moser  had  described  it  among  the  old 
Germans. 

Herder  embodied  these  thoughts  in  three  works  produced  in 
the  year  1774,  viz.  the  ‘Oldest  Record  of  Man,’ ‘  Pro-  Herder’s 
vincial  Leaflets  for  Clergymen/  and  the  pamphlet  xfrkunde 
entitled  ‘Another  Philosophy  of  History  with  reference  der  Mensch- 
to  the  development  of  the  human  race/  In  these  works  heit/  and 
he  does  not  by  any  means  pose  as  an  orthodox  be-  ^l&tw  ffir' 
liever  of  any  particular  confession.  Slight  differences  prediger,’ 
of  opinion  were  not  now  so  strictly  regarded ;  the  1774. 
orthodox  party  and  the  pietists  had  both  been  thrust  into  the  back¬ 
ground  ;  the  dominating  views  were  those  of  the  enlightened  school, 
and  a  common  aversion  to  them  drew  together  nearly  all  finely- 
touched  souls.  The  result  was  a  general  reinforcement  of  faith  and 
pious  feeling,  which  was  further  promoted  by  the  increasing  worship 
of  Klopstock.  Hamann,  Lavater,  Jung,  Claudius,  Jacobi,  were  all 
religious  in  spirit;  the  Catholics  were  not  behind  the  rest,  and 
though  the  Jesuit  order  had  been  suppressed  in  1773,  yet  this  very 
loss  of  material  power  may  have  stimulated  the  Catholics  to 
redoubled  intellectual  activity. 


126 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Cb.  XI. 


Lavater  of  Zurich,  a  preacher  and  a  Swiss  patriot,  lived  wholly 

„  in  the  Christian  faith  and  in  love  of  Christ.  He 

Lavater. 

travelled  through  Germany,  and  charmed  all  who 
became  acquainted  with  even  Goethe,  from  his  totally  dif¬ 

ferent  world,  extended  a  nBldly  hand  to  him.  By  his  attempt  to 
His  ‘  Phy-  rea-d  charact^of  men  from  their  faces,  and  by  his 
siognomische  ‘  Physiognomical  Fragments/  in  which  he  gave  an 
Fragments.  account  0f  his  science  of  physiognomy,  and  published, 
with  Goethe’s  co-operation,  numerous  portraits  of  contemporaries 
*  and  of  deceased  persons,  with  an  interpretation  of  their  characters, 
/he  greatly  strengthened  the  feeling  for  individuality,  and  stimulated 
poets  to  rivalry  in  the  art  of  characterization ;  but  he  himself,  with 
all  his  great  literary  activity,  did  not  succeed  in  producing  a  single 
artistic  work  of  lasting  merit.  His  feeling  for  individuality  and  his 
loving  nature  and  gentle  manners  must  have  given  him  the  power 
of  winning  hearts ;  but  his  zeal  for  proselytizing  broke  down,  and 
his  faith  degenerated  into  superstition.  He  was  always  hoping 
for  new  miracles,  and  allowed  himself  to  be  imposed  upon  by  false 
miracle-workers,  by  swindlers  and  rogues  such  as  Cagliostro  and 
Christoph  Kaufmann.  Thus  we  see  that  it  was  not  in  poetry 
alone  that  ghosts  were  reinstated  in  their  former  honour ;  in 
real  life  too  they  were  accredited  afresh,  and  proved  a  profitable 
speculation. 

Jung-Stilling’s  faith  in  ghosts  was  a  more  innocent  one.  He  was 
Jung-  a  friend  of  Goethe’s  youth,  the  acquaintance  dating 

stilling,  from  his  Strassburg  period.  He  was  first  a  doctor, 
then  a  political  economist,  and  he  wrote  a  narrative  of  his  own  life, 
which  breathes  throughout  a  simple  and  religious  spirit.  He  was 
imbued  with  a  touching  faith  in  a  special  Providence,  which  had 
smoothed  his  way  in  difficulties  and  watched  over  him  with 
fatherly  care.  But  the  purest  spirit,  the  most  truly  childlike  heart, 
was  that  of  the  gentle  Claudius,  the  ‘  boy  of  inno¬ 
cence,’  as  Herder  called  him,  ‘  full  of  moonlight,  and 
with  the  lily-scent  of  immortality  in  his  soul.’  One  must  first  get 
over  the  tone  of  affected  popularity  in  which  his  newspaper,  the 
‘  Wandsbecker  Bote,’  is  written,  in  order  to  enjoy  the  really  beauti¬ 
ful  things  which  it  contains.  Peculiar  forms  of  writing  still  play 


Claudius. 


Ch.  xi.]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati.  127 


a  great  part  in  it  as  in  Rabener,  Moser,  and  the  older  weekly 
newspapers ;  but  we  cannot  help  liking  this  naive  humourist, 
and  we  read  his  fables  and  proverbs  with  pleasure,  and  lend 
a  friendly  ear  to  the  sentiments  li*essed  in  his 

TT-  ,  -nv  ifl ,  •  t  c  His  poems. 

songs.  His  evening  song,  ‘  Her  MUrd  1st  aurge- 
gangen,'  is  written  in  the  spirit  dfc  Paul  Gerhardt,  but  with  that 
higher  appreciation  of  nature  which  this  later  age  had  acquired. 
His  poem  at  the  grave  of  his  father  is  remarkable  for  the  love 
and  deep  sorrow  which  it  expresses.  The  poem  entitled  ‘  Der 
Tod  und  das  Madchen’  gives  us  a  most  powerful  picture  of  the 
terrified  maiden  and  the  consoler,  Death.  Merriment  reigns  supreme 
in  the  story  of  the  giant  Goliath  and  in  the  narrative  of  the  travels  of 
Master  Urian.  Claudius  shows  the  nearest  affinity  to  the  poets  of  the 
Gottingen  brotherhood ;  like  them,  he  wants  to  be  popular,  and 
sometimes  affects  a  rustic  style,  and  his  songs,  like  theirs,  are 
meant  rather  for  singing  than  for  reading.  With  him,  as  with 
them,  we  sometimes  feel  ourselves  reminded  of  the  Middle  High- 
German  lyric  poets,  by  the  absence  of  all  rhetorical  ornament,  and 
by  the  union  of  natural  freshness,  humour  and  piety  with  a  simple 
and  patriotic  heart.  Like  Voss  and  his  wife  Ernestine,  Claudius,  too, 
sometimes  allows  us  a  glimpse  of  his  modest  household  and 
his  married  bliss.  Voss  and  Claudius  both  found  their* highest 
satisfaction  in  the  poetry  of  domestic  life,  sanctified  by  religion, 
only  religion,  which  was  the  support  of  both,  assumed  a  somewhat 
different  colour  with  each. 

While  Claudius  was  writing  from  Hamburg  as  an  independent 
author,  and  contributing  to  the  new  religious  revival,  Fritz  Jacobi 
Fritz  Jacobi  rallied  around  him  the  faithful  on  the  in  Diissel- 
lower  Rhine  at  Diisseldorf.  He  considered  Spinozism  dorf* 
to  be  the  most  consistent  philosophy ;  but  Spinoza’s  Pantheism 
seemed  to  him  mere  Atheism,  and  he  restored  the  God  whom 
reason  deprived  him  of,  through  the  means  of  direct  perception,  feel¬ 
ing,  presentiment,  and  faith.  Jacobi  was  a  kindred  spirit  to  Hamann. 
Later  on  his  chief  sphere  of  influence  lay  in  Munich,  and  he 
drew  his  philosophical  disciples  mostly  from  the  ranks  of  the  Roman 
Catholics.  In  Bavaria  the  religious  revival  was  led  by  the  ex- 
Jesuit  Michael  Sailer,  while  the  North  German  Catholics  gathered 


128 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


Heinse. 


round  the  Princess  Galitzin  of  Munster,  the  1  Christian  Aspasia/ 
as  they  called  her,  who  was  also  intimate  with  devout  Protest¬ 
ants.  Hamann  died  in  her  house  in  1788,  and  it  was  through 
her  means  that  Fritz  Stolberg  was  won  over  to  the  Roman  Church 
in  1800. 

Jacobi  occupied  a  peculiar  middle  position.  He  was  in¬ 
timate  with  Wieland,  and  was  a  friend  of  Goethe’s,  wrho  had 
met  him  with  enthusiastic  affection  on  his  Rhine  journey  in 
Jacobi’s  1774-  He  made  two  weak  attempts  at  novel-writing, 

novels.  jn  both  of  which  the  heroes  are  a  mixture  of  Goethe 

and  of  himself.  His  was  a  tender  nature,  all  feeling  and  sentiment. 

Georg  His  elder  brother  Georg,  a  gentle  and  loving  character, 
Jacobi.  and  an  intimate  friend  of  Gleim’s,  wrote  lyrics  and 
prose  works,  and  knew7  well  how  to  polish  his  language,  and  how 
to  ingratiate  himself  with  the  ladies.  From  1774  he  published  a 
monthly  magazine,  the  ‘  Iris/  to  which  Goethe  also  contributed, 
and  under  Goethe’s  influence  his  poems  gained  in  truth  and  reality. 

Wilhelm  Heinse,  who  was  co-editor  with  Georg  Jacobi, 
likewise  belonged  to  the  school  of  Wieland  and  Gleim, 
and  the  wine-  and  love-songs  of  the  Anacreontic  school  assumed 
in  his  romances  a  wild  and  passionate  character.  Not  but  what  he 
interwove  the  highest  pleasures  with  lower  forms  of  enjoyment, 
and  gloried  in  enthusiastic  conversations  on  sculpture  and  music 
quite  as  much  as  in  the  description  of  luxurious  feasts.  As  Goethe 
loved  the  Dutch  genre-painters,  and  praised  Diirer  and  Gothic 
architecture,  so  Heinse  rebelled  against  the  one-sidedness  of 
Winckelmann  and  Lessing’s  ideal,  and  loved  to  extol  the  art  of 
Rubens  and  of  the  modern  landscape-painters  as  against  the  taste 
which  did  not  extend  beyond  ancient  statuary.  In  this  respect,  as 
well  as  in  his  poetic  extravagances,  he  too  reflects  the  so-called 
‘  Storm  and  Stress  ’  spirit.  But  while  the  new  literary  movement 
Opposition  spread  to  such  an  extent  in  Wieland's  immediate  neigh- 
to  Wieland.  bourhood,  and  even  carried  away  his  own  disciples, 
how  did  it  fare  with  the  master  himself?  He  was  one  of  the  poten¬ 
tates  of  the  older  literature,  one  of  those  against  whom  the  Revolu¬ 
tion  was  directed.  He  was  looked  upon  as  the  opposite  pole  to 
Klopstock,  and  the  Gottingen  brotherhood  burnt  him  in  effigy, 


Wieland's 

attitude. 

The 

‘  Teutscher 
Merkur,’ 
1773. 


Ch.  XL]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati.  129 

while  Goethe  ridiculed  him  in  his  farce  entitled :  ‘  Gods,  heroes, 
and  Wieland.’ 

In  the  face  of  all  this  opposition  Wieland  acted  with  consummate 
skill.  His  ‘Teutscher  Merkur’  had  just  begun  to 
appear  in  the  very  year  of  the  literary  revolution, 

1773,  and  he  felt  that  he  must  lose  no  time  in 
defining  his  position.  He  accordingly  threw  out 
feelers  in  the  shape  of  the  articles  written  by  his 
contributors,  refusing  to  acknowledge  their  views  as 
his  own,  whenever  it  suited  him  so  to  do.  At  the  same  time  he 
could  censure  writers  whom  he  disapproved  of  by  simply  passing 
them  over  in  silence.  He  made  short  work  of  Hamann’s  ob¬ 
scurities  ;  he  distinguished  with  great  discrimination  what  was 
valuable  and  what  was  merely  exaggerated  in  Herder ;  he  criticised 
Goethe’s  ‘Gotz,’  this  ‘beautiful  monster,’  as  the  most  important 
phenomenon  of  modern  German  poetry,  freely  acknowledged  the 
uncommon  talent  shown  in  it,  and  was  altogether  so  just  in  both 
praise  and  blame  that  Goethe  was  obliged  to  exclaim  in  amaze¬ 
ment,  ‘No  one  understands  me  better  than  Wieland;’  he  also 
reviewed  with  much  dispassionateness  Goethe’s  farce  directed 
against  himself,  and  recommended  it  to  his  readers  as  a  masterpiece 
of  persiflage.  Goethe  said,  ‘Now  I  must  let  him  go  for  ever. 
Wieland  is  gaining  as  much  in  the  public  estimation  by  the  line  he 
takes  as  I  am  losing.  I  am  just  put  to  shame.’  Such  being  the 
attitude  on  each  side,  we  are  not  surprised  to  hear  wieland  at 
that  the  meeting  in  Weimar  at  once  smoothed  all  Weimar, 
differences,  and  that  Wieland’s  enthusiastic  good-  1-777. 
nature  succumbed  to  the  fascination  of  Goethe’s  personality. 

A  poem  of  Goethe’s  headed  the  first  number  of  the  ‘  Merkur  ’ 
for  the  year  1776,  and  Herder,  too,  soon  appeared  among  its  contri¬ 
butors.  The  ‘  Merkur  ’  became  the  recognised  organ  of  the  Weimar 
band  of  authors,  and  experienced  many  transform¬ 
ations  in  consequence,  for  Wieland,  too,  now  became 
another  man,  and  reached  the  summit  of  his  powers  only 
under  Goethe’s  influence.  He  ventured  on  an  expe¬ 
dition  into  the  old  world  of  romance,  into  the  bright 
fields  of  the  Middle  Ages,  of  chivalry,  and  of  fairy-tale.  His  early 


His  taste  for 
mediaeval 
and 

chivalrous 

literature. 


VOL.  II. 


130  The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great.  [Ch.  XI. 

taste  for  Ariosto  and  even  for  ‘Don  Quixote’  had  revealed  a  ten¬ 
dency  in  that  direction,  and  if  he  ridiculed  fairy-tales  in  the  person 
of  Don  Sylvio,  it  was  only  that  he  might  himself  win  access  into 
their  magic  gardens.  It  was  just  becoming  the  fashion  in  France 
to  write  about  the  age  of  chivalry,  and  many  mediaeval  stories  were 
now  rendered  more  accessible  to  modern  readers.  In  1775  Count 
Tres  an  began  the  publication  of  a  Library  of  Romance,  including 
abstracts  of  many  old  chivalrous  romances  ;  these  formed  a  mine 
of  wealth  for  the  epic  poet,  from  which  Wieland  did  not  fail  to 
draw.  At  the  same  time  Goethe  taught  him  to  admire  Hans  Sachs 
and  the  humorous-popular  literature  of  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth 
centuries,  which  in  consequence  suddenly  became  an  absorbing 
topic  in  the  ‘  Merkur ;  ’  portraits  of  Sebastian  Brand,  Geiler  von 
Kaisersberg  and  others  were  published  in  it,  with  accompanying 
essays  on  each.  Wieland  himself  praised  Hans  Sachs  in  prose, 
while  Goethe  eulogised  him  in  doggrel  verse.  Herder  wrote  an 
essay  on  Ulrich  von  Hutten.  But  Wieland  went  further  than  this; 
he  studied  single  mediaeval  poems,  and  turned  all  these  studies  to 
account  in  his  own  poetic  productions.  Following  the  example  of 
Haller  and  the  Zurich  school,  Goethe,  Burger,  Voss,  and  others  had 
adopted  old  words  and  dialectal  expressions,  and  despised  the  correct 
diction  of  the  Saxon  school  and  the  precepts  of  a  Gottsched  or  an 
Adelung ;  and  now  Wieland  too  began  to  enrich  his  vocabulary 
from  Old  German  sources.  As  Goethe  had  revived  Hans  Sachs’ 
doggrel  verses  in  an  improved  form,  so  Wieland  now  tried  his  hand  at 
tales  of  greater  or  less  length  in  the  Hans  Sachsian  manner ;  but  he 
soon  gave  up  copying  Sachs’  external  peculiarities,  and  by  dint  of  re¬ 
modelling  the  easy  colloquial  style  which  he  had  learnt  from  Gellert  in 
accordance  with  his  Old  German  examples,  he  sometimes  attained  in 
various  metres  to  a  style  which  bore  the  strongest  resemblance  to 
the  chivalrous  epic  poetry  of  Hartmann  von  Aue.  He  narrated  the 
battle  of  the  Titans,  and  derived  many  of  his  materials  from  oriental 
His  *  Gan-  or  ot^er  fairy-tales  and  from  tales  of  chivalry ;  his 
dalin  ’  and  ‘  Gandalin  ’  and  ‘  Geron  the  noble,’  stories  derived 
‘  Geron  der  from  the  Arthur-romances,  are  specially  worthy  ot 
notice.  ‘  Geron  ’  is  Wieland’s  most  serious  poem, 
and  the  self-restraint  shown  in  it,  the  quiet  tone,  the  absence  of 


Ch.  xi.]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati .  131 

mannerism,  the  aesthetic  and  moral  tendency  make  it  perhaps  his 
most  perfect  work.  After  such  preparatory  studies,  he  was  well 
fitted  to  write  a  comprehensive,  well-planned  epic,  full  of  colour 
and  contrast.  Such  is  his  poem  of  ‘  Oberon,’  the  His 
materials  for  which  he  found  in  the  French  Library  ‘  Oberon.’ 
of  Romance,  in  Shakspeare  and  in  Chaucer.  Three  separate 
elements  are  thus  combined  in  this  epic  of  Wieland’s : — the  elves 
of  the  ‘  Midsummer  Night’s  Dream,’  the  fantastic  deeds  and  ad¬ 
ventures  of  the  Knight  Huon  of  Bordeaux,  and  a  story  of  noble 
love  and  passionate  devotion.  The  poem  rolls  on  in  free  stanzas, 
and  for  graphic  narrative,  splendour  of  outward  incident,  and  truthful 
delineation  of  character,  it  can  count  but  few  equals  in  the  whole 
range  of  modern  literature.  We  are  carried  on  from  scene  to  scene 
without  the  interest  flagging  for  a  single  moment.  The  poem  is 
almost  throughout  truly  epic  in  tone.  Wieland’s  own  personality  is 
more  concealed  than  in  any  of  his  youthful  romances,  his  jesting 
and  irony  have  become  more  discreet,  and  more  moderation  and 
proportion  are  observed  in  description  and  analysis  of  feelings. 
‘  Oberon  ’  is  a  variation  on  his  old  theme  of  human  weakness,  but 
in  this  poem  he  visits  such  weakness  with  hard  punishment  and 
heavy  expiation,  purifying  two  noble  souls  and  qualifying  them  for 
the  highest  happiness. 

‘  Oberon  ’  appeared  in  1780.  Goethe  was  delighted  with  it,  and 
Lessing  spoke  of  the  work  with  admiration.  But  Wieland’s  epic 
power  had  exhausted  itself ;  ‘  Clelia  and  Sinbald,’  a  legend  of  the 
twelfth  century  which  followed  on  1  Oberon,’  is  dull  and  diffuse,  and 
manifestly  inferior.  He  achieved  more  success  in  his  His  trans- 
masterly  free  translations  of  Horace’s  ‘  Satires’  and  lations  of 
‘Epistles,’  which  appeared  from  1782  to  1786.  In  the  classics, 
addition  to  these,  there  appeared  from  his  pen  in  1788  and  1789  a 
complete  German  Lucian  and  later  on  Cicero’s  Letters,  a  few 
works  of  Xenophon,  and  some  plays  of  Aristophanes  and  Euri¬ 
pides  ;  but  in  fresh  attempts  at  novels  drawn  from  the  Greek  world 
he  never  again  attained  to  the  excellence  of  ‘Agathon.’ 

The  young  Goethe  had  learnt  from  Klopstock,  Wieland,  and 
Lessing,  but  he  had  quickly  outgrown  all  three  of  them,  and  was 
superior  to  them  all  in  original  creative  power.  Although  in  his 


K  2 


132 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


sympathies  Klopstock  was  most  akin  to  the  revolutionary  German 
Goethe’s  youths  of  this  period,  yet  he  could  never  bring  him- 

cntics.  self  to  frankly  recognise  Goethe’s  power,  and  in  this 

respect  he  contrasts  unfavourably  with  Wieland.  Even  Lessing, 
in  whose  mind  both  ‘  Gotz  ’  and  ‘  Werther  ’  must  necessarily  have 
excited  mixed  feelings,  did  not  shut  his  eyes  to  their  merits ;  he 
contented  himself  with  publishing  a  few  philosophical  essays  of 
young  Jerusalem’s,  thus  comparing  the  real  Werther  with  the 
Werther  of  fiction,  and  at  the  same  time  using  the  opportunity  to 
utter  a  few  golden  words  on  the  use  of  aesthetic  rules.  The  new 
revolutionary  literature  as  a  whole  had  its  many  weak  sides  to  show, 
and  an  excellent  satirist  like  Professor  Lichtenberg  could  hit  on  these 
with  unerring  judgment,  when  he  ridiculed  Lavater’s  science  of 
physiognomy  and  zealous  proselytism,  and  made  fun  of  the  moon¬ 
shine  romanticism  and  extravagant  enthusiasm  generally.  But  it  is 
surprising  that  a  man  like  Friedrich  Nicolai  should  have  dared  to 
parody  ‘  Werther  ’  and  the  taste  for  popular  songs,  and  so  clumsily 
and  stupidly  as  he  did.  Anyhow,  this  foolish  attack  only  reacted  on 
its  perpetrator,  by  depriving  him  for  ever  of  his  credit  as  a  critic. 

In  spite  of  its  errors,  Frederick  the  Great’s  late-awakened 

sympathy  with  German  literature  contrasts  favourably 
Frederick  ^  ^ 

the  Great’s  suc^  dulness.  About  the  end  of  1780  he  sud- 

•  De  la  Litte-  denly,  in  a  work  entitled  ‘  De  la  Litterature  allemande,’ 

rature  Aile-  uttered  himself  on  a  subject  which  people  had  hitherto 
mande,T780.  .  .  ......  .  .  . 

supposed  to  be  quite  indifferent  to  him.  But  we  have 

noticed  his  conversations  with  Gottsched  and  Gellert  at  an  earlier 
period  in  his  life.  It  was  of  course  impossible  for  him  to  acquire 
late  in  life  a  real  knowledge  of  German  literature,  and  his  boldness 
was  great  in  attempting,  notwithstanding,  to  write  about  it.  He 
would  hear  nothing  of  Lessing,  and  he  really  knew  nothing  of 
Klopstock  and  Wieland.  But  he  spoke  of  Gellert,  and  gave  full 
recognition  to  his  merits,  as  he  had  done  years  before ;  he  men¬ 
tioned  Gessner  and  a  few  other  names  of  peculiar  selection  which 
happened  to  have  come  under  his  notice.  He  attacked  the  bad 
taste  of  an  earlier  period ;  of  the  literature  of  the  present  and  of 
the  immediate  past  only  Goethe’s  ‘  Gotz  ’  had  come  within  his 
horizon,  and,  as  was  to  be  expected  from  the  disciple  of  Voltaire, 


Ch.  XL]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati.  133 

he  expended  the  full  vials  of  his  wrath  on  this  miserable  imitation 
of  the  miserable  plays  of  Shakspeare.  His  criticism  was  after-date, 
for  Goethe  himself  had  by  this  time  quite  forsaken  the  Shakspearian 
manner,  and  had  a  short  time  before  planned  his  *  Iphigenie  ’  after 
those  very  rules  and  examples  of  the  ancients  which  the  king 
wished  to  be  held  in  esteem.  Frederick's  opinion  that  the  German  1 
language  must  be  improved  before  it  could  be  adapted  to  poetry, 
and  his  suggestions,  hardly  seriously  meant  however,  for  the  said 
improvement,  can  only  be  read  with  a  smile ;  but  this  display  of 
warm  patriotic  zeal  combined  with  such  utter  ignorance  of  facts 
and  with  such  naive  proposals,  this  wish  for  preparations,  arrange¬ 
ments,  rules,  which  were  already  extant  and  had  already  borne 
fruit,  is  very  pathetic  and  full  of  irony,  symbolising  as  it  does  the 
division  of  the  nation  and  the  separation  of  the  higher  classes  from 
the  intellectual  life  of  the  people. 

This  work  of  Frederick's  made  a  great  sensation.  Many  pens 
were  at  once  ready  to  undertake  the  defence  of  German  literature, 
and  much  weak  stuff  appeared  with  this  intent.  The  best  that  was 
written  on  the  subject  came  from  Justus  Moser.  Goethe  purposed 
a  reply,  but  never  carried  out  his  resolution.  The  answer  most 
calculated  to  make  an  impression  on  the  king  himself  came  from 
a  Danzig  Jew,  Gomperz  by  name,  and  his  work  elicited  a  friendly 
acknowledgement  from  Frederick.  The  king  was  now  really  better 
informed  as  to  the  actual  condition  of  German  literature,  and  when 
he  received  Gleim  in  Potsdam  on  Dec.  22,  1785,  he  asked  whether 
Wieland  or  Klopstock  were  the  greater  writer. 

Berlin  had  made  great  progress  under  Frederick’s  government. 

It  had  become  large  enough  to  be  the  centre  of  Berlin  undor 
attraction  for  all  classes  throughout  Prussia ;  at  the  Frederick’s 
same  time  it  had  remained  small  enough  to  facilitate  g°vernment. 
personal  relations  between  people  who  agreed  in  their  tastes,  and 
to  favour  the  formation  of  a  cultured  society  composed  of  aristo¬ 
cratic  and  middle-class  elements.  Berlin  possessed  a  public  opinion 
which,  just  because  it  could  not  assert  itself  in  political  matters, 
acted  all  the  more  powerfully  in  matters  of  religion  and  literature. 
Moreover,  at  Berlin  people  were  pretty  much  agreed  in  matters  of 
taste,  thanks  to  Lessing’s  journalistic  activity.  In  fact  there  was 


13 4  ■  The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great.  [Ch.  XI. 

in  the  Prussian  capital  a  public  to  appeal  to,  and  if  we  think 
for  a  moment  what  a  difference  it  would  have  made  if  Berlin 
had  retained  Lessing  and  given  appointments  to  Klopstock  and 
Wieland,  what  a  powerful  attraction  the  city  would  then  have 
exercised  on  a  young  author  like  Goethe,  and  how  it  might 
thus  have  become  the  intellectual  metropolis  of  Germany,  we  can 
the  better  understand  how  fatal  the  king’s  exclusively  French  cul¬ 
ture  was  to  the  literary  development  of  his  people.  Such  a 
metropolis  would  have  steadied  German  taste  and  given  it  a 
single  predominant  tendency.  It  was  the  want  of  this  which  led 
to  that  extraordinary  variety  of  style  which  we  meet  with  in  Goethe’s 
writings,  and  which  resulted  in  the  production  of  works  so  utterly 
different  from  each  other  as  ‘  Gotz  ’  and  ‘  Die  Naturliche  Tochter,’ 
but  which  also,  through  the  medium  of  Goethe’s  example,  occa¬ 
sioned  in  the  case  of  beginners  so  much  tentativeness  and  vacil¬ 
lation,  revolutionary  experiments,  and  a  very  Babel  of  criticism  and 
production. 

The  literary  endowment  of  the  Prussian  capital  was  very  inferior. 

Literature  The  Academy  was  indeed  fortunate  enough  to  call 

in  Berlin,  forth  through  its  prize-essays  a  few  excellent  works  of 
Herder’s  ;  but  the  German  world  of  letters  was  only  represented 
there  by  second-class  writers,  who  might  be  very  valuable  in  the 
following  of  great  men,  but  could  not  compensate  for  the  absence 
of  first-class  authors.  Sulzer,  Ramler,  Engel,  Gedike,  Biester  were 

Nicolai's  not  muc^  lo  boast  °£  In  the  year  1765,  Friedrich 
‘Allgemeine  Nicolai  started  the  ‘General  German  Library’  as  a 

Deutsche  kind  of  continuation  and  extension  of  the  ‘  Litteratur- 
Bibhothek.  grjefe »  started  by  Lessing;  it  was  a  critical  review 
which  embraced  all  the  various  provinces  of  literature,  and  continued 
to  exist  till  the  year  1806  ;  it  did  not  contribute  much  to  the  aesthetic 
culture  of  Germany,  but  it  was  a  great  power  in  the  sphere  of  philo¬ 
sophy  and  religion,  attacking  with  unwearying  energy  and  far-reaching 
effect  all  theological  tutelage,  all  religious  exaggeration  and  super¬ 
stition.  Nicolai’s  description  of  a  journey  through  Germany  threw 
light  into  many  a  dark  corner,  and  this  work  was  seconded  by  the 
‘  Berlinische  Monatschrift,’  a  publication  which  he  started  in  the 
year  1783.  In  ecclesiastical  offices,  Spalding  and  Teller  helped  to 


Ch.  XL]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati.  135 


further  the  cause  of  religious  enlightenment.  Outside  Prussia  an 
enlightened  theologian  like  Basedow  initiated  reforms  Basedow’s 
in  school-teaching  by  combining  the  rationalistic  educational 
demand  for  a  rapid,  easy,  unimaginative  method  of  ac-  reforms- 
quiring  knowledge  with  Rousseau’s  principles  for  a  more  natural 
form  of  education ;  and  his  innovations,  in  so  far  as  they  contained 
any  elements  of  real  progress,  now  forced  their  way  into  Prussia 
too.  Every  measure  of  public  benefit,  every  proposal  of  general 
utility,  every  humanising  idea  was  joyfully  greeted  and  quickly  fol¬ 
lowed  out  in  Frederick  the  Great’s  dominion.  As  soon  as  Lessing’s 
‘Nathan’  appeared,  Dohm  wrote  on  the  improvement  of  the  political 

position  of  the  Jews ;  Moses  Mendelssohn  also  uttered 
.  .  Moses  Men- 

himself  on  the  subject,  recalling  to  mind  the  old  delssohn’s 

accusations  against  the  Jews  and  the  refutation  of  writings  in 

them,  rebutting  charges  made  in  modern  times  against 


favour  of 
the  Jews. 


Jews,  and  finally,  in  his  work  ‘  Jerusalem,’  raising  a 
demand  for  the  total  separation  of  church  and  state  (1784).  But 
he  not  only  struggled  to  gain  a  better  position  for  his  fellow- 
believers,  but  sought  to  render  them  more  and  more  worthy  of 
such  a  position  by  elevating  and  improving  them.  And  for  these 
efforts  in  particular  he  deserves  the  greatest  praise,  for,  with  all  his 
modesty,  he  was  a  great  liberator  in  this  sphere,  and  contributed 
more  than  any  other  man  to  make  the  Jews  in  Germany  into 
Germans.  He  exerted  an  influence  on  the  wider  German  public 
by  his  psychological  researches,  by  his  ‘  Phaedo  ’  Hig 
(1767)  and  his  ‘Morning  Hours’  (1785),  works  < Phaedo’ 
written  to  prove  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  the  and  ‘  ^tor- 
existence  of  God.  He  showed  himself  throughout  to  &eustuuden- 
be  a  clear  writer,  but  not  a  thinker  of  striking  originality. 

After  the  appearance  of  Lessing’s  ‘  Laokoon  ’  and  ‘  Minna  von 
Barnhelm,’  Berlin  did  not  give  birth  to  any  leading  aesthetic  or 
scientific  ideas  under  the  government  of  Frederick  the  Great.  The 
focus  of  German  enlightenment  lay  not  in  Berlin,  but  in  Konigs- 
berg  and  Wolfenbiittel,  and  its  leading  representatives  were  not 
Mendelssohn  and  Nicolai,  but  Lessing  and  Kant.  Lessing,  in  the  last 
four  years  of  his  life,  gave  a  new  impulse  to  theology,  and  in  the  year 
of  Lessing’s  death  Kant  brought  about  a  revolution  in  philosophy. 


1 36 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great . 


[Ch.  XI. 


In  the  year  1784  Kant  wrote  a  small  essay  entitled,  ‘What  is 
Kant’s  Enlightenment?’  He  answered  the  question  thus: — 
views  on  « Enlightenment  is  intellectual  majority;  its  motto  is: 
Enlighten- ,  Have  the  courage  to  use  thine  own  understanding  ! 

He  enquired  further  :  Are  we  now  living  in  an  en¬ 
lightened  age  ?  and  answered,  No,  but  in  an  age  of  enlightenment ; 
the  greater  number  of  men  have  not  yet  attained  their  majority, 
and  are  not  yet  capable  of  dispensing  with  the  guidance  of  another 
in  matters  of  religion ;  but  they  are  on  the  way  to  dispense  with  it. 
And  therefore  ‘  this  age  is  the  age  of  enlightenment  or  the  century 
of  Frederick,’  for  Frederick  the  Great  granted  that  liberty  which 
enlightenment  demands,  liberty  to  make  open  use  of  reason  in  all 
matters  How  Kant  himself  made  use  of  this  liberty  may  be  seen 
His  three  in  his  philosophical  works,  above  all  in  his  three 
Critiques,  epoch-making  Critiques,  which  appeared  at  the  close 
of  the  age  of  Frederick  as  the  most  valuable  scientific  bequests  of 
German  Enlightenment :  the  Critique  of  Pure  Reason  in  1781,  the 
Critique  of  Practical  Reason  in  1788,  and  the  Critique  of  the 
Power  of  Judgement  in  1790.  Kant  was  as  old  as  Klopstock,  and 
five  years  older  than  Lessing ;  when  he  published  the  Critique  of 
Pure  Reason  he  was  already  fifty-seven  years  of  age.  He  seemed 
to  develop  quickly,  but  in  reality  he  held  back  his  speculations 
till  they  were  quite  matured.  In  early  years  he  made  great 
His  scien-  discoveries  in  the  realm  of  cosmic  physics.  Going 
tific  works.  even  beyond  Newton,  he  -propounded  in  1755 
a  hypothesis  011  the  origin  and  development  of  the  cosmic 
system,  which  has  been  recognised  as  correct  by  the  most 
modern  researches  in  natural  science.  He  sought,  at  the  same 
time,  to  work  on  the  imagination  of  his  readers ;  he  drew  a 
grand  picture  of  a  burning  sun,  one  of  those  priceless  flames 
which  Nature  has  lighted  as  torches  to  the  universe;  he  spoke 
of  the  inhabitants  of  distant  planets  and  of  the  possibility 
that  our  souls  might  find  new  homes  in  distant  heavens. 
Finally,  he  says,  that  if  we  fill  our  minds  with  such  reflections, 
then  the  aspect  of  the  starry  heavens  on  a  clear  night  affords  a 
pleasure  which  only  noble  souls  can  feel ;  in  the  general  calm  of 
nature  and  with  the  senses  at  rest,  the  hidden  intuitive  powers  of 


ch.  XI.]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati.  137 


His  style. 


the  immortal  spirit  speak  an  ineffable  language.  The  ‘  Reflections 
on  the  sense  of  the  Beautiful  and  the  Sublime'  (1764), 
almost  entirely  conceal  the  philosopher,  and  show  bacbtungen 
us  only  the  experienced  man  of  the  world,  who  gives  uber  das 
vent  to  observations,  often  very  acute,  on  the  characters  Gefuhl  des 
of  races  and  nations,  and,  as  a  side-remark,  utters  the  _  .  .  , 

maxim  so  characteristic  of  himself,  that  in  order  to 
attain  to  truth  one  must  not  be  bold  but  careful.  In  the  ‘  Dreams 
of  a  Ghost-seer'  (1766),  he  shows  a  most  delicious  uis  ‘Traume 
vein  of  humour.  He  gave  regular  lectures  on  anthro-  eines  Geis- 
pology  and  physical  geography,  through  which  he  terseliers- 
hoped  to  exercise  an  influence  on  real  life.  In  fact,  he  had  struck 
deep  roots  in  the  culture  of  his  time;  his  learning  sometimes  bears 
an  artistic  colouring,  and  he  wrote  at  first  a  clear  and 
often  energetic,  though  not  exactly  flowing  style.  In 
his  chief  works,  however,  the  language  is  difficult  and  often  obscure, 
and  moves  awkwardly  in  long,  involved  sentences.  This,  from  the 
first,  prevented  his  books  from  exercising  any  direct  influence  on 
the  cultivated  public ;  the  unpleasing  race  of  commentators  and 
popularisers  had  to  lend  their  services,  and  among  philosophical 
authors  by  profession,  who  affected  originality,  the  opinion  gained 
ground  that  clearness  was  incompatible  with  depth.  His  pbilo- 
But  the  thoughts  which  Kant  set  forth  in  so  uncouth  sophical 
a  manner  were  the  ripest  fruit  of  the  whole  philo-  works, 
sophical  movement  since  Leibniz ;  only  that  here,  too,  perfection 
meant  finality.  In  many  respects  Kant  belongs  rather  to  the  party 
of  his  countryman  Hamann  than  to  the  earlier  school  of  Enlighten¬ 
ment.  Hamann  delighted  in  quoting  the  maxim  of  Hume,  that 
mere  reason  is  not  sufficient  to  convince  us  of  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  religion,  and  Kant  too  had  received  a  strong  impulse 
from  Hume.  Though  much  of  his  system  is  in  direct  opposition 
to  Hume,  yet  he  was  agreed  with  him  in  the  main  His 
point,  in  his  hostility  to  so-called  natural  religion,  that  religious 
is,  to  that  popular  enlightened  philosophy  which  attitude, 
arrogated  to  itself  the  power  of  proving  the  most  important  truths 
of  religion  by  the  light  of  reason.  Mendelssohn’s  ‘  Morning 
Hours  ’  had  been  refuted  before  they  appeared.  Kant’s  1  Critique 


I3s 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great. 


[Ch.  XI. 


of  Pure  Reason’  sought  to  demonstrate  that  all  the  usual  arguments 
for  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  freedom  of  the  human  will  and 
the  existence  of  God,  were  insufficient  and  even  impossible.  And, 
furthermore,  he  appealed,  not  like  Hamann,  to  revelation,  but,  like 
the  same  Hamann,  to  faith.  He  destroyed  the  visionary  harmony 
of  knowledge  and  faith ;  but  he  wished,  as  he  said,  to  uproot  know¬ 
ledge  in  order  to  keep  a  place  for  faith,  and  that  other  world  which 
he  destroyed  in  the  sphere  of  knowledge  he  built  up  again  in  the 
sphere  of  morality.  From  the  voice  of  reason,  which  says  to  man 
‘  Thou  shalt,’  from  that  moral  ideal  which  lives  in  him,  Kant 
thought  he  might  infer  liberty,  immortality  and  God,  and  make 
this  the  substance  of  faith ;  and  he  even  went  so  far  as  to  under¬ 
take  that  philosophical  interpretation  of  Christian  dogmas,  which 
Lessing,  in  his  ‘  Education  of  the  Human  Race/  had  put  into  the 
mouth  of  a  fictitious  author.  But  throughout  he  held  fast  to  the 
moral  point  of  view;  he  rejected  all  other  worship  of  God  than 
uch  as  consists  in  a  moral  attitude  in  thought  and  action;  he  only 
recognised  positive  religion  in  so  far  as  it  could  be  interpreted  in 
the  spirit  of  a  religion  of  morality_and  he  looked  forward,  like 
Lessing,  to  a  time  when  all  ecclesiastical  religion  would  become 
unnecessary.  In  their  high  conception  of  a  morality  which  acts 
only  from  duty,  which  does  good  only  for  the  sake  of  good,  and  in 
which  no  motive  of  temporal  or  eternal  advantage  tarnishes  the 
purity  of  the  will,  in  their  noble  worship  of  the  dignity  of  the  moral 
man,  Lessing  and  Kant  were  quite  at  one,  and  by  their  faith  they 
gave  to  their  nation  a  moral  fervour  which  stood  them  in  good 
stead  in  days  of  trial. 

But  Lessing  and  Kant  were  not  the  only  men  who,  at  the  end 
of  the  age  of  Frederick,  attained  to  a  purer  and  deeper  form  of 
philosophy;  Herder  also  must  be  added  to  them.  Not  only  Wolf- 
Herder  and  enbuttel  and  Konigsberg,  but  Weimar  too  was  one  of 

Goethe’s  the  classical  homes  of  German  Enlightenment.  Herder 

later  reli-  and  Goethe  adopted  a  theory  of  the  universe  in  har- 
gious  views.  mony  the  views  of  Spinoza.  Together  they  built 

their  temple  on  a  height  from  which  Goethe  had  already,  at  an 
earlier  period,  cast  afar-reaching  glance  into  infinite  distance.  They 
now  separated  themselves  completely  from  men  like  Lavater,  Jacobi, 


Ch.  XT.]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati. 


139 


and  Claudius.  Herder  discarded  his  ardent  prophetic  manner,  and 
wrote  a  clearer  and  more  regular,  though  still  at  times  somewhat 
unctuous  and  rhetorical  style ;  a  style  in  which  we  seem  to  trace 
Goethe’s  influence.  He  gave  up  his  exalted  faith,  bestowed  his 
respect  again  on  such  men  as  Spalding  and  Michaelis,  whom  he 
had  attacked  in  Biickeburg,  and  in  an  enthusistic  necrologue  he 
eulogised  Lessing  as  the  true  seeker,  discoverer,  and  defender  of 
truth,  the  courageous  enemy  of  all  hypocrisy  and  half-  Herder’s 
truths.  In  his  ‘  Letters  concerning  the  study  of  theo-  theological 
logy’  he  advanced  a  proposal  for  reading  the  Bible  works. 

‘  from  a  human  point  of  view,  and  laid  down  the  maxim  that 
‘  theology  is  a  liberal  study,  and  requires  no  slavishness  of  soul.’ 
In  a  succession  of  theological  writings  he  proved  himself  to  be  a 
gentle  disciple  of  Christ,  and  in  a  special  volume,  entitled  ‘  God/ 
published  in  1787,  he  set  forth  his  view  of  Spinoza’s  doctrine, 
which  is  rather  a  re-modelling  of  Spinozism  for  his  own  use  than  a 
faithful  reproduction  of  the  same.  In  the  four  volumes 
of  his  ‘  Ideas  on  the  Philosophy  of  the  History  of  man’ 

(1784  to  1791),  he  unfolded  a  grand  picture  of  nature 
and  humanity,  fulfilled  with  the  thought  of  an  all-per¬ 
vading  law.  He  begins  with  the  position  of  the  earth 
in  the  universe,  ‘  a  star  among  stars/  then  passes  from 
the  constitution  of  our  planet  on  to  inorganic  and  organic  nature, 
and  rises  from  minerals,  plants,  and  animals  to  man ;  he  dwells 
upon  man’s  organization  and  significance,  his  dependence  on  sur¬ 
rounding  nature  and  the  beginnings  of  his  culture,  and  describes 
the  development  of  this  culture  among  various  nations,  in  Eastern 
and  Western  Asia,  and  along  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean,  in 
antiquity  and  in  the  Middle  Ages.  He  has  arranged  a  wealth  of 
material  into  an  articulate  system,  with  infinite  skill  and  true  talent 
and  taste,  and  has  interwoven  throughout  noble  moral  reflections. 
Humanity  is  the  leading  and  determining  thought  which  runs 
through  the  whole ;  the  history  of  the  nations  is  represented  as 
a  school  of  probation  for  the  attainment  of  the  fairest  crown  of 
human  dignity.  Reason  and  wisdom  alone  last,  while  senseless¬ 
ness  and  folly  destroy  themselves,  and  bring  ruin  on  the  earth. 
Humanity  is  Herder’s  last  word  in  history,  humanity  is  his  last 


His  *  Ideen 
zur  Philo- 
sophie  der 
G-eschiehte 
der  Mensch.- 
heit.’ 


14° 


The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great . 


[Ch.  XI. 


word  in  religion. 

o 


sing  s 


His  tnoughts  have  much  in  common  with  Les- 
_  _  but  the  two  views  which  Lessing  carefully  dis- 

Comparison 

between  tinguishes,  the  view  of  a  divine  education  of  the  human 
Herder’s  race,  which  he  himself  could  not  wholly  accept,  and  the 
and  Lessings  ot]~,er  view  Qf  a  purely  natural  development  of  all  cul¬ 
ture,  including  religious  culture,  are  often  confounded 
in  Herder.  In  contrast  to  Lessing’s  views,  as  expressed  through 
the  mouth  of  the  fictitious  author  of  the  ‘Education  of  the  human 
race,’  Herder  does  not  accord  a  place  of  honour  to  the  Hebrews 
as  a  nation,  but  reserves  his  warmest  admiration  and  esteem  for 
the  Greeks.  Still  he  has  much  reverence  for  Jesus,  and  expresses 
it  in  a  few  solemn  sentences.  Christ  is  to  him  a  man,  a  teacher  of 
humanity ;  ‘  as  a  spiritual  Saviour  of  his  race  he  wished  to  form 
divine  men,  who,  under  whatever  laws  it  might  be,  should  advance 
the  welfare  of  others  from  pure  principles  of  right,  and  willing 
themselves  to  suffer,  should  reign  as  kings  in  the  realm  of  truth 
and  benevolence.’  But,  like  Lessing,  he  distinguishes  the  religion 
of  Christ  from  the  Christian  religion ;  and  while  he  gives  an  exalted 
position  to  the  former,  his  attitude  towards  the  latter  is  cold  and 
even  hostile.  At  this  stage  of  his  development  Herder  had  lost  his 
earlier  sympathy  with  the  Middle  Ages.  His  work  breaks  off  at 
Eis  ‘Briefe  enc^  Middle  Ages  ;  the  fifth  book  was  never 

zur  Beforde-  accomplished,  and  the  disconnected  ‘  Letters  for  the 
rung  der  advancement  of  Humanity’  (1793  to  1797)  were  no 
Humamtat.  reaj  compensation  for  it.  In  these  letters  Herder 
connects  his  old  ideals  of  Reason,  Tolerance,  and  Benevolence 
with  great  historical  figures  of  the  last  centuries,  and  pays,  for  in¬ 
stance,  his  tribute  of  reverence  to  Frederick  the  Great,  in  whose 
State  he  was  born.  ‘When  Frederick  died,’  he  remarks,  ‘a  lofty 
genius  seemed  to  have  left  the  earth ;  both  the  friends  and  enemies 
of  his  glory  were  affected  at  his  death ;  it  was  as  though  even  in  his 
garb  of  mortality  he  might  have  been  immortal.’ 

Kant  had  reviewed  the  first  and  second  volume 
of  Herder’s  1  Ideas,’  and  had  in  so  doing  showed  his 
superiority  as  a  philosopher  and  critic  to  his  coun¬ 
tryman  and  pupil,  in  a  somewhat  irritating  though  not 
violent  manner.  The  East- Prussian  character  embraces  strong  con- 


Opposing 
types  of 
the  East- 
Prussian 
character. 


Ch.  XI.]  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati.  141 


trasts;  it  has  a  gentle  and  imaginative  and  a  hard  and  rational  type. 
The  Konigsberg  poets  of  the  seventeenth  century,  Simon  Dach  and 
his  friends  were  of  the  former,  Gottsched  of  the  latter  type.  Herder, 
excitable  and  full  of  enthusiasm,  belongs  to  the  former;  Kant,  full 
of  reflection,  self-restraint,  and  calmness  of  mind,  to  the  latter.  In 
such  a  character  as  Hamann  these  opposite  qualities  are  mingled  in 
the  same  nature,  so  that  reason  is  kept  in  check  by  imagination, 
and  imagination  by  reason,  and  now  one  and  now  the  other  gains 
the  upper  hand. 

As  Kant  gave  a  somewhat  cold  reception  to  Herder’s  ‘  Ideas,’  so 
Herder  was  from  the  first  prejudiced  against  the  new  opposition 
Kantian  doctrine,  and  at  last  was  so  far  carried  between 

away  by  his  anger  at  the  growing  authority  of  the  Herder 

critical  philosophy,  as  to  make  a  violent  attack  upon  and  •Kant* 
it  in  his  ‘  Metakritik  ’  and  his  ‘  Kalligone.’  But  though  these  differ¬ 
ences  in  intellectual  temperament  led  to  outspoken  hostility  between 
the  two  parties  concerned,  they  appeared  to  outsiders  and  to  pos¬ 
terity  to  be  rather  supplementary  each  of  the  other.  Kant  forced 
his  readers  into  the  grey  calm  regions  of  abstraction,  pure  thought, 
and  metaphysics ;  Herder,  on  the  other  hand,  transported  them  into 
the  midst  ofjhe  glories  of  nature  and  the  activities  of  history. 
Kant  kept  them  strictly  and  seriously  on  the  other  side  of  the 
senses,  where  pure  reason  has  her  abode,  and  utters  her  commands  ; 
Herder  opened  to  their  wondering  eyes  the  fair  world  of  sensuous 
experience,  as  it  reflected  itself  in  his  marvellous  imagination. 

While  these  contrasts  were  developing  themselves,  while  Kant 
on  the  one  hand,  and  Spinoza  and  Herder  on  the  ^  ,  .. 

other,  were  gaining  disciples  and  followers,  and  the  of  modern 
foundation  was  thus  being  laid  for  the  science  of  to-  science  and 
day,  the  greatest  German  poets  were  also  creating  literature- 
their  best  works.  The  heroes  of  the  ‘  Storm  and  Stress  ’  epoch  ot 
poetry,  the  revolutionises  of  the  drama,  became  disciples  of  the 
Greeks  and  the  representatives  of  refined  classical  poetry.  They 
too,  like  Herder,  passed  through  a  refining  process,  and  Lessing’s 
‘  Nathan’  pointed  them  the  way  to  greater  purity  of  form.  A  year 
after  the  death  of  Frederick  the  Great  appeared  Goethe’s  ‘  Iphigenie’ 
and  Schiller’s  ‘  Don  Carlos.’ 


CHAPTER  XII. 


WEIMAR. 


‘Your  son  Goethe  sits  in  the  Wartburg,  like  Dr.  Luther  a 
Goethe  century  and  a  half  ago,  and  is  enjoying  himself  tho- 
at  the  roughly,  I  think,  among  the  ghosts  of  chivalry,  who 
Wartburg,  have  their  home  in  this  noble  castle.’  Thus  Wieland 

\r7r7f7 

writes  to  Goethe’s  mother  on  the  last  of  September, 

1777,  and  he  adds,  after  a  complaint  about  his  friend's  silence: 

‘  Still  he  is  and  remains,  with  all  his  peculiarities,  one  of  the  best, 

noblest,  and  most  splendid  creatures  on  God’s  earth.’ 

Goethe  was  in  truth  thoroughly  enjoying  himself  in  the  Wartburg, 

‘  that  pure,  calm  height  in  the  midst  of  the  rushing  autumn  winds.’ 

His  Darmstadt  friend  Merck  visited  him  there;  the  Duke  of 

Weimar,  the  lord  of  the  castle  and  his  own  master,  was  in  the 

neighbourhood.  The  poet  was  trying  by  his  sketches  to  impress 

the  surrounding  landscape  on  his  mind,  and  he  wrote  to  his  most 

intimate  lady-friend :  c  This  is  the  most  delightful  dwelling  I  have 

ever  known,  so  high  and  so  cheerful  that  one  could  only  bear 

to  be  here  on  a  passing  visit,  otherwise  one  would  be  overpowered 

by  its  elevation  and  cheerfulness.’ 

The  Wartburg  has  several  times  before  this  figured  in  our  history 

of  German  literature.  It  was  on  the  Wartburg  that  Landgrave 

Tlie  Hermann  of  Thuringia,  in  the  thirteenth  century, 

Wartburg  received  Wolfram  von  Eschenbach  and  Walther  von 

in  German  (Jgj-  Vogel weide  ;  it  was  there  that  in  the  fourteenth 
lit6rB»t\ir6 

century  one  of  the  earliest  German  dramas  was  per¬ 
formed  in  the  presence  of  another  Thuringian  prince  ;  there  Luther 
translated  the  Bible  in  the  sixteenth  century ;  the  ruling  princes  of 


Ch.  XII.] 


Weimar. 


143 


Weimar,  who  were  his  patrons,  took  a  prominent  part  in  the 
labours  of  the  ‘  Fruit-bringing  Society’  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
and  in  the  eighteenth  century  acquired  the  renown  of  having 
brought  more  fruit  to  German  literature  than  any  other  princely 
patrons. 

German  writers  had  hoped  in  vain  for  encouragement  from 

Frederick  the  Great.  In  vain  had  Klopstock  and  _  . 

r  The  Weimar 

others  looked  forward  to  the  accession  of  Joseph  II.  princes  as 
Occasional,  but  never  constant,  encouragement  had  literary 
been  given  to  literature  in  Brunswick,  Buckeburg,  Patr°ns- 
Futin,  Karlsruhe,  Dessau  and  Gotha,  but  the  Weimar  princes  alone 
succeeded  in  permanently  attaching  to  their  court  a  succession  of 
the  most  distinguished  men.  The  Duchess  Anna  Amalia,  a  Guelph 
princess  from  Brunswick,  who  was  early  left  a  widow  and  bur¬ 
dened  with  the  care  of  the  little  state,  called  Wieland  into  her 
service  as  a  tutor  to  her  son  Karl  August.  This  young  prince, 
who  assumed  the  reins  of  government  in  1 775,  at  the  age  of  eighteen, 
supported  the  national  policy  of  Frederick  the  Great,  Kar2 

and  proved  himself  throughout  his  life  one  of  the  August, 
most  patriotic  and  liberal-minded  of  German  princes ;  1775. 

he  followed  in  the  steps  of  his  mother  in  securing  the  presence 
at  his  court  of  Goethe,  Herder,  and  Schiller.  In  the  last  years  of 
his  great-uncle’s  life,  and  till  1788,  he  prosecuted  with  burning 
zeal  a  reform  of  the  German  Imperial  constitution,  in  close  con¬ 
nection  with  Prussia.  The  revival  of  a  truly  national  policy  and  the 
brilliant  union  of  the  noblest  spirits  of  the  German  nation  were 
both  the  work  of  this  noble-minded  ruler.  The  University  of 
Jena,  founded  in  the  Reformation  period,  when  Wittenberg  was  lost 
to  the  successors  of  Frederick  the  Wise,  passed  through  its  most 
brilliant  era  under  the  patronage  of  Karl  August.  Herder  left 
the  stamp  of  his  genius  on  the  ecclesiastical  and  educational  system 
of  the  Duchy.  Side  by  side  with  the  great  poets  and  scholars, 
lesser  men  also  contributed  to  that  wonderful  literary  activity 
which  now  began  to  develop  itself  in  the  little  duchy  Men  of 
of  Weimar.  Among  the  classical  scholars  there  were  letters  at 
writers  such  as  the  busy  journalist  an.l  archaeologist  "Weimar. 
Bottiger,  and  at  an  earlier  period  Musaus ;  the  latter  was  a  story- 


144 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


teller  of  the  Wieland  type,  and  his  ironical  rendering  of  old  German 
legends,  ‘  Popular  Fairy-tales  of  the  Germans/  as  he  called  them, 
long  enjoyed  great  favour.  From  1778  onward  Bode  lived  in  in¬ 
dependent  circumstances  in  Weimar.  He  was  a  friend  of  Lessing’s 
from  his  Hamburg  days,  and  had  a  high  reputation  as  a  Free¬ 
mason  ;  he  made  excellent  translations  of  Montaigne  and  the 
English  humorists,  Sterne,  Smollett,  Goldsmith,  and  Fielding.  At 
the  court  and  in  its  immediate  neighbourhood  aesthetic  and  literary 
interests  were  represented  by  Major  von  Knebel,  the  chamberlains 
von  Seckendorf  and  von  Einsiedel,  and  the  private  secretary 
Berluch,  who  were  all  distinguished  as  original  writers,  translators, 
or  musicians.  Bertuch  was,  in  addition,  a  clever  bookseller,  and 
as  such  started  many  useful  undertakings,  in  particular,  in  1785 
the  ‘  Jena  General  Literary  Magazine,’  an  influential  critical  journal ; 
in  1786  he  also  commenced  the  publication  of  the  first  German 
fashion-paper,  the  ‘  Journal  of  Luxury  and  Fashions.’  We  see  that 
Weimar  and  Jena  led  the  fashion  of  Germany  not  only  in  letters  and 
art,  but  in  all  other  respects. 

The  ripest  productions  of  Wieland,  Goethe,  Herder,  Schiller 

were  at  the  same  time  monuments  of  Karl  August’s 
Goethe’s  ,  .  .  .  .  .  .  ... 

Masque  for  gl°nous  rule.  Among  the  written  testimonies  which 

the  18th  of  they  themselves  bore  to  the  greatness  of  those  times, 

December,  Goethe’s  Masque  for  the  18th  of  December,  1818, 
1818  1 

stands  out  above  the  rest.  It  represents  the  great 
master  left  alone  to  look  back  on  the  past  and  mourn  his  lost 
companions ;  he  recalls  Wieland’s  ‘  Musarion  ’  and  ‘  Oberon,’  and 
summons  up  before  him  the  figures  of  Herder  and  Schiller  along 
with  the  creations  of  their  genius  ;  meanwhile  the  lime,  the  river 
which  flow’s  through  Weimar,  sings  the  praises  of  his  friends  and 
gives  a  modest  description  of  the  poet  himself.  But  to  us  more 
reality  and  more  pathos  seem  to  lie  in  the  epigram  in  which  he 
praises  his  duke,  ‘Klein  ist  unter  den  Fiirsten  Germanien’s  freilich 
der  meine/  (‘  Venezianische  Epigramme '),  who  w’as  to  him  an 
Augustus  and  a  Maecenas,  and  who  gave  him  what  rulers  seldom 
bestow’,  sympathy,  leisure,  trust,  fields,  and  garden  and  house. 


Ch.  XII  ] 


Goethe . 


145 


Goethe. 


On  the  7th  of  November,  1775,  Goethe  came  to  Weimar,  and  at 
once  created  a  revolution  there.  The  doctrines  of  Goethe 
Rousseau  and  the  programme  of  the  £  Storm  and  comes  to 

Stress  ’  party,  the  striving  to  follow  nature  in  all  the  Weimar, 

r  ~  ■  - - - — ' - *  1775 

concerns  of  life,  took  the  little  court  by  storm.  The 

duke’s  own  inclinations  were  strengthened  by  Goethe.  Etiquette 

was  altogether  discarded,  and,  instead  of  the  usual  court- dress,  the 

Werther  costume  was  adopted — high  boots,  blue  coat,  and  yellow 

waistcoat.  In  their  enthusiasm  they  all  sought  to  harden  themselves 

by  living  much  in  the  open  air,  by  long  walks,  venturous  rides, 

skating  parties  at  night,  and  exciting  chases.  They  danced  in  the 

country  with  the  peasant  maidens,  and  gave  up  many  a  night  to 

the  magic  of  wine  and  poetry,  to  the  grief  of  the  young  duchess  and 

her  ladies.  Goethe  himself  in  later  years  did  not  like  to  look  back 

on  this  mad  time,  but  it  gained  him  the  life-long  friendship  of  the 

duke.  In  daily  intercourse  they  opened  their  hearts  to  each  other, 

and  Karl  August,  who  showed  from  early  manhood  great  strength 

of  will  and  sure  discernment  of  character,  perceived  in  Goethe  the 

stuff  for  making  a  useful  servant  of  his  state. 

Goethe  had  only  come  as  a  guest  of  the  duke ;  in  this  inde¬ 
pendent  position  he  succeeded  in  getting  Herder  called  , 

CjrOGtlie  S 

to  Weimar.  By  the  nth  of  July,  1776,  he  himself  was  official 
appointed  Councillor  of  the  Legation,  with  a  seat  and  activity  in 
'vote  in  the  Privy  Council;  in  January,  1779,  he  un-  eimar* 
dertook  the  direction  of  the  War  Commission  and  the  Highways 
Commission;  in  June,  1782,  he  became  provisionally  Minister  of 
Finance,  the  most  responsible  position  in  the  administration.  He 
put  the  finances  into  order,  and  insisted  everywhere  on  economy. 
In  his  official  career  generally  he  followed  the  maxims  of  his 
beautiful  poem :  ‘  Edel  sei  der  Mensch,  hilfreich  und  gut/  He 
sought  to  raise  the  lower  classes,  and  worked  hard  and  inde- 
fatigably  to  render  the  government  a  truly  humane  and  enlightened 
despotism,  and  thus  to  realise  the  liberal  ideals  of  his  youth. 
Though  at  first  the  old  officials  looked  askance  at  him,  while  the 
duchess  saw  in  him  the  evil  genius  of  the  duke,  yet  he  ended  by 

VOL.  II.  L 


jq6 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


gaining  general  confidence.  Moreover,  this  absorption  in  public 
affairs  was  most  beneficial  to  him ;  the  wide  interests  and  activities 
of  political  life  gave  him  that  satisfaction  which  he  could  never 
find  in  the  practice  of  the  law.  What  was  ‘problematic’  in  his 
nature,  to  use  his  own  expression,  disappeared,  and  public  service 
made  him  firm  and  consistent.  Surrender  to  the  duties  of  office 
taught  him  the  general  duty  of  self-surrender,  and  he  was  but 
giving  voice  to  his  own  deepest  experience  when  he  wrote  in  his 
diary :  ‘  None  but  he  who  quite  denies  himself  is  worthy  to  rule 
and  able  to  rule.’ 

The  court-life,  too,  exercised  a  good  influence  on  him.  Hitherto 
Good  delighted  to  disregard  with  student-like  free- 

influence  of  dom  all  the  customs  of  society,  and  in  his  first  months 
court-life  at  Weimar  he  had  led  with  the  duke  a  second  student- 
upon  him.  .  gut  now?  [ n  the  company  of  noble  women,  such 
as  the  Duchess  Luise  and  Frau  von  Stein  (wife  of  the  Master  of  the 
Horse),  he  learnt  to  appreciate  the  value  of  social  rules  and  morality. 
The  established  forms  of  refined  social  intercourse  now  seemed  to 
him  an  unmixed  good,  and  the  aristocracy,  who  follow  them  from 
youth  up,  appeared  to  him  the  flower  of  society.  He  himself  had 
been  ennobled  by  Imperial  diploma  in  April,  1782,  and  though 
neither  Schiller  nor  he  could  possibly  feel  themselves  raised  as  men 
by  this  rise  in  rank,  yet  the  fact  is  a  valuable  external  evidence  of 
the  increased  esteem  in  which  national  poetry  was  beginning  to  be 
held.  Now  once  more,  as  in  the  classical  period  of  Middle  High- 
German  literature,  poets  moved  as  equals  among  equals  in  the 
highest  grades  of  society.  Now,  too,  Goethe  experienced  in  himself 
that  ennobling  power  of  love  which  the  Minnesingers  praised  so 
His  friend-  highly ;  in  the  noble  character  of  Charlotte  von  Stein 
ship  with  he  seemed  to  have  found  everything  ‘  that  man  in  his 
Frau  von  earthly  limits  of  high  happiness  can  call  by  a  divine 
stein.  name  ’  (cf.  the  poems  ‘An  Lida’  and  ‘Fur  ewig’). 
He  reverenced  her  with  deep  gratitude,  and  in  one  of  his  short 
lyrics,  ‘  Zwischen  beiden  Welten,’  he  ranks  her  influence  on  his  life 
by  the  side  of  that  of  Shakspeare.  Goethe’s  relation  to  Frau  von 
Stein  developed  the  tenderest  .side  of  his  nature.  She  was  open  and 
sincere,  not  passionate,  not  enthusiastic,  but  full  of  intellectual 


Ch.  XII.] 


Goethe. 


147 


ardour;  a  gentle  seriousness  dignified  her  demeanour;  a  pure, 
sound  judgment,  united  with  a  noble  thirst  for  knowledge,  rendered 
her  capable  of  sharing  all  Goethe’s  poetic,  scientific,  and  human 
interests.  We  possess  innumerable  letters  and  hasty  notes  which 
he  addressed  to  her,  and  which  contain  germs  for  a  thousand  most 
beautiful  poems.  His  letters  to  Frau  von  Stein  are  as  rich  in  inci¬ 
dent,  as  sincere  and  pathetic  and  full  of  charm  as  Werther’s  letters, 
but  much  more  concise  and  free  from  declamation.  And  in  their 
author  we  have  something  better  than  a  Werther;  not  a  morbid 
lover,  but  a  true  friend  and  brother.  It  is  wonderful  to  watch 
the  strange,  passionate,  extravagant,  youthful  genius  developing 
into  the  mature  man.  The  moral  and  religious  forces  of  his 
nature  were  strengthened  and  elevated  by  Frau  von  Stein. 
Purity  is  the  name  he  has  for  that  nobler  inward  life  which  she 
awakened  in  him,  and  in  which  he  seemed  to  rise  more  and  more 
to  the  passionless  wisdom  of  Spinoza.  ‘  Calm  and  presentiment 
of  Wisdom  ’  is  one  of  the  entries  in  his  diary  at  this  time.  ‘  Holy 
fate,’  he  prays,  ‘  let  me  now,  cheerful  and  self-possessed,  know  the 
happiness  of  being  pure.’  And  further  on  he  expresses  this  wish : 
‘  May  the  idea  of  the  pure,  which  extends  even  to  the  food  which 
I  take  in  my  mouth,  become  ever  clearer  and  brighter  within  me.’ 

His  poetry,  too,  became  at  this  time  a  mirror  of  purity.  Court- 
festivities,  and  an  amateur  theatre  in  which  the  court  jmprove_ 
took  an  active  interest,  made  frequent  demands  on  his  ments  in 
poetic  talents.  His  new  life  furnished  new  problems ;  hls  poetry, 
public  office  and  aristocratic  society  increased  his  knowledge  of 
human  nature,  and  supplied  him  with  new  characters,  and  the 
ideal,  moral  world  in  which  he  was  now  living  was  reproduced  in 
figures  of  lasting  grandeur.  His  deep  recognition  of  the  blessing 
of  a  strict  law  regulating  the  life  of  action  made  him  more  inclined 
again  to  recognise  fixed  forms  in  poetry.  The  sympathy  with 
others,  which  he  now  fostered  in  his  heart,  his  noble  faith  in  an  en¬ 
nobled  humanity,  independent  of  the  finite  and  accidental  differences 
of  rank  and  circumstance,  of  religion  and  nationality,  all  this  had 
its  influence  on  his  style  and  poetic  method ;  it  is  shown  by  the  in¬ 
creased  earnestness  with  which  he  sought  to  portray  general  human 
types  rather  than  the  individual  and  accidental  peculiarities  of  men. 


L  2 


148 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


Whereas  in  Werther  he  had  drawn  the  portrait  of  a  singular  and 
exceptional  personality,  of  one  who  seemed  almost  a  freak  of  nature, 
he  now  tried  to  look  at  the  individual  as  just  a  single  example  in 
which  the  great  essential  features  of  humanity  are  embodied.  He 
had  in  former  days  gone  so  far  as  to  help  Lavater  in  his  attempts 
to  read  men’s  faces,  but  now  he  turned  from  the  individual  stamp 
His  scientific  to  study  the  general  type  of  structure,  the  anatomy  of 
studies.  man.  Werther’s  enthusiasm  for  nature,  his  imagina¬ 
tive  absorption  in  the  phenomena  around  him,  in  the  character  of 
the  landscape,  in  the  changes  of  the  seasons  and  the  weather,  now 
assumed  more  and  more  in  Goethe’s  mind  the  character  of  a  deep 
scientific  interest.  The  lover  of  nature,  who  clung  with  passion  to 
reality  and  sought  to  fix  it  in  his  drawings  and  poetry,  was  trans¬ 
formed  into  the  genuine  naturalist.  Life  at  Weimar,  in  country, 
wood  and  garden,  brought  natural  objects  more  closely  before  his 
eyes.  Forestry  led  to  botany,  and  the  Ilmenau  mining  works,  of  which 
he  had  the  official  superintendence,  led  to  mineralogy  and  gedtogy. 
In  an  eloquent  essay  on  granite  he  justified  the  transition  from  ‘  the' 
contemplation  and  description  of  the  human  heart — that  youngest, 
most  manifold,  varying,  and  changeable  of  creations— to  the  obser¬ 
vation  of  the  oldest,  firmest,  deepest,  most  imperturbable  son  of 
Nature.’  The  disciple  of  Spinoza  revelled  in  the  contemplation  of 
the  universe,  eternally  changing,  but  changing  according  to  un- 
changeable  laws.  The  poet  needed  to  conceive  of  Nature  as  an 
active  and  living  organism,  carrying  out  its  life  as  a  whole  into  its 
parts.  He  believed  that  Nature  is  steady  and  slow  in  her  action, 
and  that  the  earth  is  subject  to  gradual  processes  of  transformation, 
for  which  enormous  periods  of  time  must  be  allowed.  In  the  or¬ 
ganic  world  also  he  believed  that  gradual  changes  are  going  on, 
resulting  over  enormous  tracts  of  time  in  the  transformation  of 
vegetable  and  animal  species.  Everything  sudden  and  revolutionary 
was  hateful  to  him,  both  in  the  natural  and  in  the  moral  world. 
Nature  makes  no  leaps,  he  said  with  Leibniz,  and  he  proved  his 
faith  by  the  discovery  of  the  intermaxillary  bone  in  man,  by  which 
he  got  rid  of  the  asserted  difference  between  the  human  skeleton 
and  that  of  the  ape. 

In  all  these  studies  Herder  was  his  faithful  companion,  though 


Ch.  XII.] 


Goethe. 


149 


he  was  on  the  whole  rather  sympathetic  than  individually  active 
in  research.  Herder’s ‘Ideas  on  the  Philosophy  of  the  Goethe  and 
History  of  Mankind  ’  derived  much  benefit  from  these  Herder, 
common  studies.  The  idea  which  Kant  in  his  unfavourable  review 
refused  to  recognise  in  Herder's  book,  because  it  was  so  stupendous 
that  reason  shrunk  back  before  it,  the  idea  namely  of  a  real  blood- 
relationship  of  all  organic  beings  to  one  another,  by  means  of  which 
men  had  developed  from  animals  and  animals  from  plants, — this 
idea  those  most  nearly  concerned  in  the  work  believed  to  be  ex¬ 
pressed  in  it.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Goethe  and  Herder 
more  or  less  grasped  that  point  of  view  which  we  associate  with 
the  name  of  Darwin. 

Goethe’s  first  period  of  public  life,  comprising  the  ten  years  from 
1776  to  1786,  is  marked  by  important  progress  in  all  Goethe’s 
directions.  Poetry  and  science,  friendship  and  love  re-  life  from 
ceived  new  impulses,  and  he  himself  became  a  better  1776  to  1786* 
man.  Yet  in  all  his  circumstances  there  was  something  that  could 
not  permanently  endure.  His  official  labours  did  not  leave  sufficient 
scope  for  his  poetic  faculties ;  a  busy  statesman  might  find  time  for 
poetic  and  scientific  sketches,  for  small  essays,  poems,  and  plays 
for  festal  occasions,  but  not  for  greater,  well  worked  out  and  per¬ 
fected  compositions.  Moreover,  as  a  minister  he  could  not  get  the 
Duke  to  carry  out  everything  that  he  considered  necessary  ;  certain 
differences  in  fundamental  principles  could  not  be  smoothed  away. 
The  relation,  too,  with  Frau  von  Stein  suffered  from  a  certain  un¬ 
naturalness  ;  love  cannot  live  by  alms,  and  the  most  intimate  friend¬ 
ship  with  the  wife  of  another  could  not  make  up  for  his  own  want 
of  domestic  happiness. 

Goethe's  Italian  journey  of  1786  to  1788  brought  about  a 
thorough  change  in  all  directions.  The  journey  itself  InfluencQ 
removed  the  unnatural  strain  under  which  he  had  been  Gf  Goethe’s 
living.  In  observation,  creation,  and  enjoyment  he  journey  to 
could  now  entirely  follow  his  inclinations.  Rich  trea-  Italy> 1786- 
sures  of  nature  and  art  were  rendered  accessible  to  him.  His  views 
became  more  settled  and  more  just,  and  his  altered  conditions  of 
life  left  a  deep  impression  on  his  whole  development,  moral  as  well 
as  artistic.  For  two  years  he  was  free  from  official  duties,  and  on 


i.5o 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


his  return  he  only  retained  the  Commissionership  of  mines,  though 
he  soon  added  to  that  the  supervision  of  the  University  of  Jena  and 
the  superintendence  of  the  State-institutions  for  science  and  art; 
these  duties  he  fulfilled  till  his  death,  and  in  addition  he  was  for 
twenty-six  years  director  of  the  Weimar  Theatre.  His  sojourn  in 
Italy  and  the  time  immediately  following  on  it  also  gave  him 
leisure  at  length. to  complete  the  first  general  edition  of  his  works; 
this  appeared  from  1787  to  1790,  in  eight  volumes,  and  after  a 
silence  of  eleven  years  revealed  him  to  the  public,  for  the  most  part 
under  a  new  aspect. 

In  this  edition  his  youthful  works  were  toned  down  as  much  as 

possible,  his  extravagances  were  modified  or  pruned 
Revision  of  .  ...  ,  .  .  .  . 

his  early  away,  and  no  more  liberties  were  taken  with  the  lan- 

works  in  the  guage.  The  greatest  care  had  been  bestowed  on  the 

edition  of  <  Sorrows  of  Werther/  which  stood  first  in  the  collec- 
1787-1790.  . 

tion.  A  riper  art  had  stamped  this  work  as  a  classic. 
The  characters  of  Lotte  and  Albert  were  elevated,  the  connection 
of  action  with  character  made  more  pointed,  and  the  episode  was 
introduced  of  the  peasant  youth,  who  being  placed  in  the  same  cir¬ 
cumstances  as  Werther,  kills  his  rival.  Moreover,  in  this  second 
edition  of  the  work  Goethe  sometimes  adopts  a  slightly  ironical 
tone  in  describing  his  hero’s  sentimentality.  But  besides  the 
old  well-known  productions,  which  had  already  captivated  the 
New  workg  whole  German  reading-public,  new  works  now  ap- 
in  the  same  peared  which  were  to  win  the  further  applause  of 
edition.  nation.  Along  with  the  songs  to  Friederike  and 

Lili  there  were  now  poems  to  Frau  von  Stein ;  besides  the  revised 
operettas  ‘  Erwin  ’  and  ‘  Claudine  ’  there  appeared  other  new  ones, 
such  as  *  Jery  und  Bately  ;’  with  the  old  farces  in  the  style  of  Hans 
Sachs  there  was  now  the  new  satire  of  the  ‘  Birds/  written  in  imita¬ 
tion  of  Aristophanes,  and  the  ‘  dramatic  freak/  as  Goethe  called  it, 
entitled  ‘Triumph  der  Empfindsamkeit by  the  side  of  *  Clavigo’ 
and  ‘Stella/  there  were  ‘Faust’  and  ‘Egmont/  ‘Iphigenie’  and 
‘  Tasso.’  ‘  Faust/  indeed,  was  still  a  fragment,  but  ‘  Egmont,’  which 
had  been  planned  in  Frankfort,  now  appeared  in  its  complete  form. 

‘  Egmont  ’  was  printed  in  prose  throughout,  but  the  later  parts  be¬ 
tray  an  iambic  rhythm.  The  original  Shakspearian  manner  gave 


Ch.  XII.] 


Goethe. 


I51 

place  towards  the  conclusion  to  a  more  idealising  treatment.  The 
play  was  planned  like  *  Gotz  ’  in  the  name  of  Liberty,  Goethe’s 
and  like  ‘  Gotz  ’  written  against  tyrants.  But  the  *  Egmont.’ 
object  of  attack  here  was  the  Spanish  violation  of  Dutch  rights, 
Spanish  intolerance  of  Protestantism,  and  Spanish  betrayal  of  a 
noble  and  confiding  hero;  the  interest  of  the  piece  is  thus  made 
cosmopolitan  rather  than  exclusively  national.  The  masses  are 
represented  in  this  drama  as  easily  led  away  and  cowardly,  like  the 
citizens  in  Shakspeare’s  ‘Julius  Caesar;’  this  fact  shows  that  even 
in  his  youth  Goethe  did  not  understand  by  liberty  the  rule  of  the 
majority.  By  placing  by  the  side  of  the  zealous  Catholic  Regent, 
Margaret  of  Parma,  a  sober-minded,  worldly  councillor,  who  bears, 
not  without  reason,  the  significant  name  of  Macchiavelli,  and  by 
making  it  clear  that  it  is  Orange  whose  feet  are  set  in  the  right 
way,  Goethe  let  it  be  clearly  understood  that  his  own  political 
views  were  of  a  very  realistic  and  practical  character.  This 
play  is  meant  to  show  that  what  delights  us  in  poetry  is  by 
no  means  what  is  practical  in  politics.  Egmont  Character  of 
himself  is  a  creation  of  poetry,  reminding  us,  though  Egmont. 
distantly,  of  Goethe’s  Fernando  in  ‘  Stella,’  or  even  of  Crugantino 
in  ‘  Claudine.’  He  lives  carelessly  and  gains  all  hearts.  The 
magical  charm  of  his  affable  nature  delights  the  people,  captivates 
a  simple  girl  like  Clarchen,  wins  the  Regent,  and  even  overpowers 
the  son  of  his  bitterest  enemy.  But  ruin  approaches  in  the  person 
of  Alba,  and  Egmont  perishes  because  he  yields  to  his  innate  in¬ 
souciance,  and  despises  the  counsels  of  prudence.  He  hopes  to 
the  last,  and  when  every  hope  for  his  own  life  is  cut  off,  he  still 
hopes  for  his  people,  of  whom  he  bears  an  ideal  picture  in  his  heart, 
very  different  from  the  reality  which  we  are  allowed  to  see.  But  the 
timid  burghers  of  Brussels,  who  melt  away  in  panic  before  Alba's 
soldiers,  are  not  the  whole  of  the  Dutch  nation  ;  Clarchen,  tco,  is 
one  of  them.  Clarchen  who  has  joined  her  fate  indissolubly  with 
Egmont’s,  who  throws  the  whole  enthusiasm  of  her  nature  into  the 
attempt  to  save  him,  tries  to  excite  the  crowd  in  the  streets  to 
revolt,  and  when  all  is  in  vain,  precedes  her  lover  in  death. 
By  making  Liberty  appear  in  the  last  scene  in  a  dream,  disguised 
as  Clarchen,  to  solace  the  hero  as  he  lies  in  the  condemned  cell, 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XII. 


152 


the  poet  reconciles  us  to  the  issue,  and  even  the  introduction  of 
music  at  the  close  softens  the  stern  tragedy  of  an  inexorable  fate. 
Goethe’s  Egmont  does  not,  like  the  historical  Egmont,  leave  behind 
him  a  mourning  wife  and  wailing  children ;  he  passes  out  of  the 
world  with  a  free,  bold  step,  like  a  victor,  and  finds  again  in  the 
next  life  those  whom  he  loved  in  this. 

While  ‘  Egmont’  is  connected  in  its  origin  with  ‘Gotz,’  ‘  Iphigenie  ’ 
His  and  ‘  Tasso’  sprang  directly  out  of  the.  poet’s  life  at 
‘  Iphigenie,’  Weimar.  ‘  Iphigenie/  in  particular,  which  was  completed 
1787.  jn  beginning  of  1787,  marks  more  than  any  other 
work  of  Goethe’s  the  moral  purification  experienced  by  the  author, 
and  his  return  from  the  revolutionary  ideas  of  his  youth  to  the  vener¬ 
able  traditions  of  the  Renaissance.  Though  these  traditions  had  not 
been  unknown  to  his  youth,  yet  he  had  never  hitherto  given  himself 
up  so  entirely  to  them.  The  subject  which  he  now  chose  was  one 
which  Euripides  had  treated,  namely,  Iphigenia  among  the  Tauri;  but 

_  instead  of  availing  himself  of  the  outward  and  mechani- 

Difrerences  ,  0 

from  cal  solution  of  the  problem,  which  the  ancient  drama 
Euripides’  permitted,  Goethe  offered  that  inward  reconciliation 
drama.  which  the  modern  spirit  demands.  He  could  not  have 
recourse  to  any  Deus  ex  machind. ,  who  should  dictate  the  law  of 
wisdom  to  the  hopelessly  perplexed  human  mind;  he  therefore 
transformed  the  human  characters  themselves,  softened  the  contrast 
between  Greeks  and  barbarians,  and  represented  the  king  of  the 
Tauri  as  so  noble  a  nature  that  his  final  conciliation  does  not  seem 
inconsistent  with  his  previous  attitude,  and  the  peaceful  conclusion  of 
the  play  does  not  strike  us  as  unnatural.  Goethe  also  gave  another 
interpretation  to  the  oracle  which  brought  Orestes  and  Pylades  to 
Tauris;  he  made  the  return  of  Iphigenia  to  her  native  land,  toge¬ 
ther  with  the  recovery  of  Orestes,  the  central  point  in  the  play,  and 
transformed  the  pursuing  furies  into  the  remorse  which  torments 
Orestes’  own  soul.  He  borrowed  one  fine  psychological  motive 
from  Sophocles'  ‘  Philoctetes :’  Iphigenia  allows  herself  to  be  per¬ 
suaded  into  taking  part  in  a  lie,  but  she  cannot  carry  out  the  part 
she  has  undertaken ;  she  speaks  the  truth  just  at  the  most  dangerous 
moment,  and  by  this  very  act  overpowers  the  opposition  of  the 
king.  The  gloomy  Orestes  and  the  pure-minded  Iphigenia  are  alike 


Ch.  XII.] 


Goethe . 


r53 


in  being  thus  sincere  and  upright,  Pylades,  on  the  contrary,  the 
experienced  man  of  the  world,  at  once  bold  and  prudent,  a  devoted 
friend  and  full  of  ardour  for  heroic  deeds,  has  chosen  Ulysses  as 
his  model ;  he  accordingly  prefers  the  path  of  cunning  and  strata¬ 
gem,  and  thus  supplies  the  foil  to  the  characters  of  Orestes  and 
Iphigenia. 

Orestes  is  a  diseased  mind  like  Werther.  But  it  is  not  imaginary 
evils  that  pursue  him,  nor  wavering  sentiment  which  Character  of 
destroys  his  power;  a  dreadful  crime  weighs  upon  Orestes, 
him,  and  a  guilt-laden  family  seems  about  to  die  out  in  him.  The 
horrors  accumulated  on  the  house  of  Tantalus  are  first  revealed 
to  us  in  Iphigenia’s  conversation  with  King  Thoas,  when  she  tells 
him  of  the  good  fortune  and  the  arrogance  of  her  great  ancestor 
Tantalus,  the  unrestrained  passions  of  his  son  and  grandson,  and 
her  own  cruel  fate,  her  sacrifice  by  her  father  and  her  rescue  by  the 
goddess  Diana.  Pylades  and  Orestes  later  on  complete  the  dreadful 
tale,  and  the  latter  has  to  acknowledge  with  his  own  lips  the  fearful 
deed  he  has  wrought,  the  murder  of  his  mother.  The  tortures 
of  remorse  and  self-abhorrence  seize  on  him  again  at  the  recital 
of  his  crime;  his  mind  seems  quite  darkened,  and  madness  takes 
possession  of  his  faculties.  The  longing  for  impesding  death 
gathers  like  the  gloom  of  night  more  and  more  darkly  round 
his  head.  But  he  does  not  like  Werther  lay  violent  hands  on  him¬ 
self,  and  the  force  of  a  tortured  imagination,  which  transports  him 
into  the  next  world,  is  at  the  same  time  his  salvation.  Death,  though 
only  grasped  in  illusion,  is  a  reconciler ;  Orestes  thinks  he  sees  Atreus 
and  Thyestes,  the  two  hostile  brothers,  united  again  in  Elysium, 
and  Agamemnon  wandering  there  hand  in  hand  with  Clytemnestra. 
This  visionary  glance  into  the  quiet  world  of  the  departed  calms 
the  storm  which  is  surging  in  his  bosom,  and  in  his  sister’s  arms  the 
guilt-laden  man,  torn  by  remorse,  is  restored  again  to  his  former  self. 
But  the  clouds  are  not  yet  all  dispersed,  and  there  is  still  reason 
for  fear;  it  is  yet  doubtful  whether  the  return  to  Greece  will  be 
successfully  accomplished.  Even  Iphigenia’s  trust  in  Providence  is 
temporarily  shaken ;  ‘  Save  me,’  she  prays  to  the  Olympian  gods, 
‘  save  me  and  save  your  image  in  my  soul.’  But  from  her  own 
pure,  childlike  heart  comes  deliverance.  Her  faith  in  truth  does  not 


154 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XII. 


deceive  her  ;  in  recovering  her  own  true  self  she  recovers  her  inward 
peace,  and  brings  the  same  peace  to  her  friends.  Barbarians  and 
Greeks,  gods  and  men  are  reconciled,  all  discords  are  resolved 
into  harmony,  and  men’s  differences  forgotten  in  their  common 
humanity. 

Orestes  returning  to  life  through  dreams  of  death,  and  cured  by 
the  touch  of  Iphigenia,  typifies  Goethe  freeing  himself  from  morbid 
thoughts,  and  finding  peace  for  his  soul  in  the  friendship  of  Frau 
von  Stein.  The  race  of  the  Tantalidae  also,  passing  from  arrogance 
and  passion  to  submissiveness  and  self-control,  from  fear  and  hatred 
of  the  gods  to  trust  and  love,  may  well  be  taken  as  symbolical  of 
Goethe  himself,  who  now  laid  aside  the  rebellious  and  defiant  attitude 
of  his  Prometheus  and  found  happiness  in  the  constant  love  of  God 
as  set  forth  in  the  teaching  of  Spinoza. 

Iphigenia  represents  the  power  of  ideal  womanhood.  Her 
Character  of  approach  brings  peace  and  reconciliation ;  her  priest- 
iphigenia.  hood  imparts  a  milder  character  to  the  religion 
of  the  barbarians,  and  the  soft  tone  of  her  voice  propitiates  the 
harsh  king.  The  weak  woman  overcomes  all  resistance,  but  she 
is  not  really  weak,  for  she  knows  no  fear ;  the  pure  instinct  which 
she  follows  makes  her  bold,  and  she  remains  constant  to  the  idea 
of  right  which  she  has  formed.  In  the  school  of  obedience  and 
misfortune,  in  the  separation  from  home  and  family,  and  in  the 
service  of  the  virgin  goddess  she  has  acquired  that  firmness  of 
character  by  which  she  gains  her  purpose.  Her  noble  character 
lifts  her  into  the  atmosphere  of  a  still  higher  general  goodness ; 
and  the  maxims  and  reflections  on  the  nature  of  man  and  woman, 
on  the  blessings  of  friendship,  on  sincerity  and  prudence,  which 
run  through  the  whole  play,  continually  reveal  an  insight  into  the 
highest  principles  of  the  moral  world. 

The  Hellenic  style  of  some  of  Goethe’s  youthful  poems  appears 
style  of  hi  this  play  purified,  toned  down  and  raised  to  an  even 
Goethe’s  level  of  artistic  perfection ;  this  perfection  was  wanting 
IP*andme  *n  orighial  prose  sketches  for  the  play,  and  was 
Wieiand’s  only  attained  in  the  blank  verse  of  the  final  version. 

‘  Alceste.’  The  style  of  Goethe’s  £  Iphigenie  ’  had  already  been 
anticipated  to  some  extent  in  a  work  which  Goethe,  in  his 


Ch.  XII.] 


Goethe . 


155 


youth  had  unsparingly  scoffed  at,  in  Wieland’s  opera  ‘  Alceste,’ 
which  has  some  lines  bearing  a  marked  resemblance  to  passages  in 
Goethe’s  drama.  The  Renaissance-drama  of  Italian  and  French 
literature  had,  after  the  appearance  of  Lessing’s  ‘  Sara,’  more  and 
more  lost  its  power  in  Germany;  the  Alexandrine  tragedy  had 
been  long  ago  discarded,  and  the  Opera  alone  remained  faithful  to 
classical  subjects,  and  continued  the  spirit  and  the  style  of  the 
Renaissance-drama.  Gluck  composed  an  ‘  Orpheus,’  an  ‘Alcestis,’ 
an  *  Iphigenia  in  Aulis,’  and  an  ‘  Iphigenia  in  Tauris.’  Wieland 
followed  the  example  of  the  Italian  and  French  librettists  ;  in  order 
to  raise  the  level  of  German  opera  he  took  up  a  mythological  theme, 
the  story  of  Alcestis,  and  in  his  treatment  of  it  hit  upon  the 
tone  which  Goethe  had  only  to  follow  out  consistently  in  order  to 
make  his  1  Iphigenie  ’  the  noblest  work  which  revived  classicism 
can  show  in  all  modern  literatures.  Goethe  introduced  the  spirit 
of  the  opera  into  the  spoken  drama,  and  succeeded  in  gaining  for 
the  German  stage  the  favour  of  the  higher  classes  who  were  still 
under  the  traditions  of  French  classicism.  He  observed  the  strictest 
laws  of  form,  and  adhered  most  rigorously  to  unity  of  time,  place, 
and  action  throughout  all  the  five  acts.  In  this,  too,  he  laid  great 
restraint  on  himself,  and  revealed  his  power  by  the  very  restrictions 
he  laid  on  it. 

One  might  say  that  Goethe,  in  his  ‘Iphigenie,’  raised  the  dramatic 
art  of  Racine  to  a  higher  level.  He  made  it  freer  and  guperiority 
more  original.  He  despised  the  conventional  introduc-  of- iphigenie’ 
tion  of  the  confidante,  the  convenient  but  improbable  t0  Racine’s 

dxdiii3(S 

narrations,  the  affected  reserve  in  the  delineation  of 
passion,  and  many  other  traditional  ideas.  Racine,  too,  had  begun 
an  ‘  Iphigenia  in  Tauris,’  and  in  some  features  Goethe’s  play 
resembles  the  fragments  of  Racine’s  piece.  Racine,  too,  favoured 
the  inner  world,  and  tender  emotions  are  the  leading  interest  of  his 
dramas ;  but  with  Racine  love  is  almost  always  the  spring  which  sets 
in  motion  outward  complications  and  passionate  inward  conflicts. 
With  Goethe,  on  the  contrary,  love  plays  a  very  subordinate  part ; 
Thoas,  the  King  of  the  Taurians,  is  indeed  a  suitor  for  Iphigenia’s 
hand,  but  Pylades  does  not,  as  we  might  naturally  expect,  con¬ 
ceive  a  strong  passion  for  her.  Selfish  desire  has  here  no  place, 


156 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


and  it  only  appears  in  Thoas  in  order  to  yield  to  renunciation. 
Those  contests  of  generosity  too,  which  formerly  enjoyed  such 
favour,  are  banished  from  this  piece  ;  there  is  no  opportunity  for 
Orestes  and  Pylades  each  to  emulate  the  other  in  readiness  to 
die  for  his  friend.  Outward  action  is  almost  entirely  wanting,  and 
the  ordinary  stage-manager  does  not  know  what  to  do  with  the 
,  r  .  .  .  ,  piece.  All  the  incident  there  is  takes  place  in  the 

a  psycho-  souls  of  natural  but  morally  noble  people,  and  these 
logical  do  not  struggle  with  outside  evil  or  vulgarity,  but 

drama.  on]y  t^e  wjsheS)  emotions,  and  convulsions  of 

their  own  hearts,  in  order  to  bring  out  in  the  end  the  victorious 
power  of  self-denial  and  self-conquest.  In  ‘  Iphigenie,’  Goethe 
created  a  new  order  of  drama  which  might  be  called  psychological 
drama,  and  which  was  peculiarly  appropriate  to  a  literary  period 
in  which  lyric  poetry  flourished  more  than  dramatic.  Germany, 
which  since  the  Reformation  and  Pietism  had  had  its  attention  so 
much  drawn  to  the  inner  life,  now,  in  this  epoch,  turned  this 
introspective  tendency  to  good  account  in  the  sphere  of  poetic 
creation. 

The  style  and  technique  of  ‘Iphigenie’  are  continued  in  ‘Tasso;’ 
Goethe’s  and  in  ‘Tasso,’  too,  Goethe  gives  us  a  psychological 
*  Tasso.’  drama,  a  powerful  tragedy,  in  which  the  catastrophe  re¬ 
sults  purely  from  character.  Tasso  was  a  well-known  personality  to 
Goethe  from  his  childhood,  one  of  the  first  great  poets  whose  name 
he  heard  mentioned.  Tasso’s  fate,  as  traditionally  reported,  fur¬ 
nished  the  clearest  example  of  the  tragedy  of  a  poet’s  life,  and 
naturally  appealed  strongly  to  Goethe’s  mind,  since  he  had  ex- 
perienced  in  his  own  nature  how  easily  a  poet  is  led 

-LvG  XI GCIS 

Goethe’s  to  transfer  the  images  of  his  own  imagination  into  the 
own  experi-  actual  world,  and  how  apt  he  is  to  misconstrue  reality 
or  to  demand  from  it  what  it  cannot  grant,  and  thus 
to  bring  about  a  painful  conflict.  Tasso  suffered  from  a  distrustful 
sensitiveness,  which  became  a  mania  of  believing  himself  the  special 
object  of  conspiracy  and  persecution ;  he  conceived  a  strong  passion 
for  a  princess  who  was  entirely  beyond  his  reach,  and  he  had  finally 
to  be  removed  from  the  circle  in  which  alone  he  found  happiness. 
Goethe  had  had  the  opportunity  of  experiencing  personally  during 


Ch.  XII.] 


Goethe. 


157 


his  first  months  of  Weimar  the  attitude  of  the  man  of  the  world 
towards  the  poet,  and  he  had  soon  himself  to  play  the  part  of  the 
prudent,  cool  and  even  cruel  man  of  the  world,  when  the  unfortunate 
Lenz  came  to  the  court  of  Weimar.  Lenz  was  treated  with  the 
greatest  kindness  and  forbearance,  like  a  sick  child,  but  at  last, 
through  some  foolish  act  like  Tasso’s,  he  drew  down  on  himself  an 
irrevocable  sentence  of  banishment.  Lenz  and  Goethe  are  both  re¬ 
presented  in  Tasso,  and  Tasso’s  opponent,  the  statesman  Antonio 
Montecatino,  has  also  many  features  drawn  from  Goethe  himself. 
Goethe,  the  visionary  and  turbulent  young  lawyer  at  Frankfort,  and 
Goethe,  the  Weimar  Minister,  are  to  a  certain  extent  embodied  in 
Tasso  and  Antonio,  though  the  latter,  who  is  wanting  in  the  gifts  of 
the  Graces,  is  at  the  same  time  a  reminiscence  of  Goethe’s  opponents 
in  Weimar.  In  this  drama  again,  self-denial,  moderation,  and  re¬ 
nunciation  appear  as  the  chief  requirements  for  a  wise  conduct  of 
life,  and  women  are  again  the  guardians  of  morality  and  good 
manners.  The  noble,  self-possessed  princess,  who  has  learnt  patience 
and  toleration  in  the  school  of  suffering,  and  who  gives  the  poet  such 
delicate  sympathy  and  understanding,  who  has  cured  him  of  every 
false  impulse  and  has  pointed  out  to  him  the  truest  happiness, 
cannot  deny  kinship  with  Iphigenia  and  Frau  von  Stein.  Her 
lively,  somewhat  intriguing  friend,  Leonore  of  Sanvitale,  furnishes  as 
delicate  a  contrast  as  Pylades  in  Tphigenie,’ only  in  quite  a  different 
direction ;  the  slight  egoism  in  all  her  sympathy  with  other  people, 
her  flattering  friendship  for  Tasso,  joined  with  the  after-thought  of 
making  the  distinguished  man  whom  she  wishes  to  benefit  at  the 
same  time  a  pleasure  and  an  ornament  to  herself,  all  this  renders 
her  one  of  the  most  interesting  types  of  the  modern  female  world, 
and  Goethe  must  certainly  himself  have  often  experienced  the 
kind  of  egoistic  sympathy  which  he  here  depicts.  Tasso’s  eloquent 
praises  of  Ferrara  are  of  course  an  expression  of  Goethe’s  feelings 
for  Weimar.  Like  Tasso,  Goethe  had  seen  the  world  in  his 
Weimar  friends,  and  had  long  only  written  for  them;  like  Tasso, 
he  could  say :  ‘  Man  is  not  born  to  be  free,  and  for  a  noble 
character  there  is  no  greater  happiness  than  to  serve  a  prince 
whom  he  can  honour.’  Tasso’s  patron,  the  Duke  of  Ferrara,  in 
his  justice,  his  sincerity,  his  chivalrous  splendour,  and  his  capability 


Weimar. 


158 


[Ch.XII. 


of  making  use  of  everyone  in  the  right  place,  may  be  taken  as 
an  idealized  picture  of  Karl  August. 

The  whole  work  was  not  cast  in  one  mould,  and  in  this  respect 
Style  of  it  is  inferior  to  ‘  Iphigenie  ;  ’  Goethe  had  only  taken 

‘Tasso.’  twro  acts  in  prose  with  him  to  Italy,  and  the  trans¬ 

formation  into  iambic  verse  was  only  completed  in  1789.  His 
strong  regret  at  leaving  Italy,  his  passionate  longing  to  return 
thither,  and  the  feeling  of  exile  with  which  he  looked  back  on  it, 
have  left  their  stamp  on  this  drama ;  but  he  did  not  find  it  easy  to 
take  up  the  subject  again  on  his  return  to  Weimar,  and  he  went 
through  a  careful  course  of  study  before  completing  the  play. 
Numerous  events  of  Tasso’s  life  are  skilfully  introduced,  changed, 
combined,  or  alluded  to,  and  the  whole  play  moves  in  an  atmosphere 
of  aristocratic  refinement,  which  gives  unity  to  the  work.  The 
contrasts  are  toned  down,  and  the  characters  have  not  the  distinct¬ 
ness  of  portraits.  The  grand  language  which  the  old  Greeks  are 
made  to  speak  in ‘Iphigenie,’ here  gives  place  to  a  smooth,  brilliant, 
courtier-like  tone.  The  figurative  style  which  wras  peculiar  to  Goethe 
from  his  youth  twines  itself  in  golden  threads  through  the  artistic 
web  of  the  dialogue,  and  grand  thoughts  are  united  with  charming 
ease  and  melody  of  expression.  In  spite  of  the  lack  of  outward 
incident,  the  play  ought  to  produce  the  strongest  dramatic  effect, 
if  there  were  actors  capable  of  revealing  all  the  force  of  suppressed 
grief  which  lies  hidden  in  the  noble  words,  and  if  there  were  a 
public  whose  hearts  could  fully  echo  the  melting  tones  which  Goethe 
here  drew  from  his  lyre. 

As  in  ‘Iphigenie’  and  ‘Tasso,’  so  in  Goethe’s  poems  written  at 
Poem-  Weimar  till  1786,  we  notice  the  same  advance  to- 
written  at  wards  calmness  and  wisdom.  At  first  he  is  still 
Weimar  restless  and  troubled,  and  longs  for  peace  (cf.  ‘  Wan- 

before  1786.  ^erer’s  Nachtlied  ’).  Then  he  comforts  himself  in 

the  evening  calm  of  woods  and  mountains  (‘  Uber  alien  Gipfeln 
ist  Ruh  ’).  In  one  poem  he  still  doubts  whether  he  shall  go  or 
remain ;  in  another  he  is  full  of  hope  for  the  work  which  he  has 
begun  (‘  Hoffnung  ’).  At  one  time  he  compares  himself  to  a  skater, 
who  boldly  makes  a  path  for  himself,  and  soothes  his  care  in  these 
words :  ‘  Quiet,  my  love,  my  heart !  Though  it  cracks,  it  does  not 


Ch.  XII.] 


Goethe. 


159 


break !  Though  it  breaks,  it  breaks  not  with  thee.’  At  another 
time  he  compares  himself  to  a  sailor,  and  calms  the  anxiety  of 
his  friends;  he  stands  bravely  at  the  helm,  wind  and  waves 
play  with  the  vessel,  but  wind  and  waves  do  not  disturb  his 
heart.  In  the  poem  ‘  Ilmenau,’  he  makes  a  clear  confession  of  the 
wildness  of  the  first  months  at  Weimar,  and  at  the  same  time  shows 
how  different  is  the  idea  which  he  and  the  duke  now  have  of  the 
function  of  government.  ‘  Mieding’s  Tod’  is  a  monument  to  the 
Weimar  amateur-theatre,  where  ‘Iphigenie’  was  first  acted,  Goethe 
himself  taking  the  part  of  Orestes  to  the  admiration  of  all  be¬ 
holders. 

Like  his  ‘Iphigenie,’  his  hymns,  too,  are  now  full  of  the  pettiness 
of  mortals,  the  greatness  of  the  gods,  and  the  love  and  blessing 
which  they  pour  on  mankind.  In  the  poem  called  ‘  Zueignung/ 
he  receives  the  veil  of  Poetry  from  the  hand  of  Truth,  and 
in  ‘  Die  Geheimnisse,’  a  poem  which  was  planned  ‘Die  Geheim- 
about  the  time  that  Herder  began  his  ‘Ideas,’  but  nisse.’ 
which  unfortunately  remained  a  fragment,  he  purposed  to  reveal 
to  his  fellow-men  in  a  poetic  form  the  highest  form  of  truth  yet 
discovered.  He  meant  in  melodious  stanzas  to  proclaim  humanity 
as  the  highest  essence  of  all  religions.  He  assigns  personal  repre¬ 
sentatives  to  the  various  religions,  who  live  in  a  kind  of  monastic 
community  presided  over  by  a  specially  eminent  man,  named 
Humanus.  We  recognise  here  an  affinity  with  Herder’s  and 
Lessing’s  views,  and  a  connection  with  the  deepest  thoughts  of  the 
Order  of  Freemasons,  to  which  both  Herder  and  Goethe  belonged. 
But  these  representatives  of  different  nations  and  religions  in 
mediaeval  costume,  half  monks  and  half  knights,  also  involuntarily 
recall  to  our  minds  the  Knights  Templars,  the  Holy  Grail,  and  the 
ties  of  relationship  which  in  Lessing’s  ‘  Nathan,’  as  in  Wolfram’s 
‘  Parzival,’  bind  heathens  and  Christians  together.  And  when  at  the 
very  beginning  of  ‘  Die  Geheimnisse  ’  we  are  met  by  the  words : 
‘  From  the  power  which  binds  all  beings  that  man  can  free  himself 
who  conquers  himself’ — we  are  at  once  reminded  of  Walther  von 
der  Vogelweide’s  question  and  answer  :  ‘  Who  kills  the  lion  ?  Who 
kills  the  giant  ?  Who  triumphs  over  this  and  that?  That  does  he 
who  subdues  himself.’ 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


160 


The  humanity  which  Goethe  teaches  in  ‘  Die  Geheimnisse  ’  has 
a  Christian  colouring;  the  arms  of  Luther,  the  rose  and  cross, 
which  Valentin  Andrea  made  the  symbols  of  the  imaginary  Rosi- 
crucian  fraternity,  and  which  were  afterwards  adopted  in  actual 
secret  societies,  appear  in  this  poem  too  as  the  most  sacred  symbol; 
the  cross  signifies  self-sacrifice,  ‘the  first  and  last  virtue,  in  which 
all  others  are  included/  as  Goethe  said  in  later  years;  the  rose 
designates  the  fair  blossoms  of  life  which  spring  from  self-sacrifice, 
and  whose  blessing  Goethe  himself  experienced  in  the  purification 
of  his  life  and  the  ennobling  of  his  art. 

The  intercourse  with  his  Weimar  friends  raised  Goethe’s  standard 
T  of  outward  poetic  form.  Whereas  Wieland  treated 

merits  in  the  stanza  arbitrarily  as  it  suited  him  best,  Goethe 
metre  and  in  £  Zueignung’  and  in  ‘  Die  Geheimnisse’  endeavoured 
to  construct  it  according  to  stricter  rules.  About  the 
year  1780  Herder  began  to  translate  from  the  Greek  anthology, 
and  to  reveal  the  beauties  of  the  Hellenic  epigrams  at  the  very  time 
when  Voss  was  rendering  Homer  into  German ;  at  the  same  time 
too  Goethe,  who  had  learnt  the  laws  of  blank  verse  from  Herder, 
began  to  write  in  distichs  and  hexameters,  though  before  this  he 
had  never  employed  purely  classical  metres.  But  it  was  not  only 
in  the  matter  of  metric  form  that  Goethe’s  power  had  increased ;  in 
poetic  conception  also  his  lyric  poetry  now  shows  signs  of  progress. 
If  we  compare  the  poem  ‘  An  den  Mond  ’  with  the  Strassburg  song 
‘  Wilkommen  und  Abschied,’  we  notice  that  there  is  less  of  outward 
incident,  but  the  inward  emotion  affects  us  all  the  more.  Out¬ 
wardly  it  is  merely  a  walk  in  a  well-known  valley  through  moon-lit 
fields  towards  the  river ;  but  the  outward  world  which  unfolds 
itself  to  the  eye  points  to  an  inner  world.  Nature  and  the 
human  soul  join  in  a  mysterious  harmony.  However  great  may 
be  the  difference,  both  in  style  and  matter,  between  the  productions 
of  Goethe’s  Frankfort  or  Strassburg  periods  and  ‘  Iphigenie,’ 
‘Tasso,’  the  lyric  poems  we  have  just  noticed,  or  indeed  most 
of  his  works  written  at  Weimar  before  his  Italian  journey,  still  we 
can  also  recognise  a  relationship  between  them.  Werther  lives  on 
in  Tasso,  and  though  in  the  ‘  Triumph  der  Empfindsamkeit/  Goethe 
might  ridicule  his  ‘  Werther  ’  and  Rousseau’s  ‘  Nouvelle  H&oise  ’ 


Ch.  XII.] 


Goethe. 


161 


as  the  ideals  of  sentimental  romance,  yet.  he  had  not  made  an  end 
of  sentiment ;  but  his  sentiment  now  assumed  a  religious  colouring, 
that  is  to  say,  if  the  mere  mood  of  renunciation,  an  asceticism 
without  dogmatic  foundation,  a  spiritual  enthusiasm  based  on  a 
pantheistic  philosophy,  may  still  be  called  religious.  And  this 
renunciation  was  combined  with  a  certain  secret  longing  for  the 
good  things  of  life,  a  suppressed  emotion,  pent-up  tears,  which 
complete  the  peculiar  character  of  this  spiritual  and  finely  touched 
poetry. 

The  spiritualizing  tendency  of  those  first  years  at  Weimar  asserts 
itself  in  nearly  all  Goethe’s  works  of  that  period.  Spiritual- 
External  Nature  is  now  not  only  loved  and  described  izing  ten- 
for  her  own  sake,  but  as  symbolising  and  reflecting  dency. 
the  inner  life  of  mankind.  In  one  poem,  *  Harzreise  Lyrics* 
im  Winter,’  all  the  incident  is  restricted  to  a  few  slight  allusions, 
in  order  to  give  the  fullest  scope  to  ethical  ideas.  The  Staubbach 
waterfall  in  the  Lauterbrunnen  valley  suggested  the  ‘  Gesang  der 
Geister  liber  den  Wassern  :’ 

‘  Soul  of  man,  thou  art  like  to  the  water. 

Fate  of  man,  thou  art  like  to  the  wind.’ 

The  ‘Letters  from  Switzerland’  again  enable  us  clearly  to  follow 
the  development  of  this  intellectual  view  of  nature. 

They  consist  of  two  series,  the  first  corresponding 
to  the  ‘  Werther  period,’  the  second  to  the  period  which 
produced  ‘Iphigenie;’  the  former  are  a  record  of 
Goethe’s  Swiss  journey  of  1775,  the  latter  were  written 
on  a  journey  which  he  undertook  with  the  Duke  in 
1779,  and  in  which  they  boldly  triumphed  over  the  difficulties  of 
winter.  The  first  series  of  letters  are  written  in  imitation  of  Sterne’s 
‘Sentimental  Journey,’  and  do  not  show  any  special  genius;  they 
are  thoroughly  subjective,  and  overflow  with  declamatory  eloquence 
and  fantastic  reflections  in  true  Wertherian  style,  in  which  the  real 
subject,  the  natuial  scenery,  is  often  completely  lost  sight  of.  All 
these  faults  are  absent  from  the  second  series  of  letters,  which  is 
highly  original  and  an  admirable  work  of  art.  The  tone  here  is 
much  more  objective,  though  still  mingled  to  a  great  extent  with 
subjective  elements.  These  later  letters  show  us  the  many-sided 


‘  Briefe 
aus  der 
Schweiz.’ 
First  and 
second 
series. 


VOL.  II. 


M 


162 


Weimar. 


[Cil.XII. 


statesman  and  scholar,  with  ripened  judgment  and  clear  glance. 
Observation  of  nature  is  the  chief  interest,  and  supplies  us  with 
some  glorious  pictures;  but  besides  the  mere  description,  the  author 
gives  us  in  thoughtful  observations  an  analysis  of  the  impression 
produced  by  them  on  his  mind,  the  comparisons  which  they  sug¬ 
gest,  or  the  inward  experiences  which  they  remind  him  of.  In  the 
end  only,  when  we  come  to  the  most  barren  regions,  does  he  draw 
for  us  the  men  who  belong  to  them  with  their  peculiar  views  of 
life,  adding  a  touching  legendary  figure  who  edifies  his  flock 
near  the  St.  Gothard,  and  a  zealous  Capuchin,  who  speaks  to  the 
travellers  of  the  power,  unity,  and  strength  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church. 

While  both  parts  of  the  ‘  Letters  from  Switzerland  ’  evidently  aim 
The  at  a  certain  artistic  unity  in  composition,  in  the  ‘  Ita- 
*  Italienische  lian  Journey/  on  the  contrary,  we  have  little  more  than 

Reise.’  carelessly  arranged  materials,  as  they  lay  ready  to  the 
poet’s  hand  in  his  letters  and  diaries  on  the  journey.  Here  Goethe 
has  become  quite  objective,  living  in  things  as  they  are,  and  in¬ 
teresting  himself  in  facts  as  such.  He  piles  up  as  much  material  as 
he  can  get,  not  everything  indiscriminately  that  offers  itself,  but 
everything  that  specially  attracts  him.  He  is  indifferent  to  the 
historical  associations  of  places,  for  he  wishes  no  web  of  fancy  to 
interpose  itself  between  him  and  the  real  objects ;  he  wants  to  see 
and  grasp  things  himself,  to  replace  the  conceptions  which  he  had 
derived  from  books  and  hearsay,  by  direct  personal  acquaintance. 
He  does  not  only  see  the  landscape,  but  also  the  elements  of  which 
it  is  composed ;  as  a  geologist  he  studies  the  volcanoes,  as  a  botanist 
he  seeks  to  reduce  to  order  the  manifold  new  forms  which  crowd 
under  his  observation,  and  thus  arrives  at  the  theory  of  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  all  parts  of  the  plant  from  the  leaf,  a  process  which  he 
designates  as  metamorphosis.  He  enjoys  the  freedom  of  Roman  life 
and  describes  the  manners  of  the  people.  After  he  had  journeyed 
hastily  through  Italy  and  Sicily  he  took  up  his  abode  for  a  time  in 
Rome.  He  did  not  care  about  fine  society,  but  lived  with  German 
artists  and  a  few  friends.  Catholicism  was  repulsive  to  him,  and 
even  his  humanitarianism,  which  in  ‘Die  Geheimnisse’  still  wore  a 
Christian  colouring,  now  became  anti-Christian  and  intolerant  towards 


Ch.  XII.] 


Goethe. 


i63 


religious-minded  people.  He  now  rejected  mediaevalism  together 
with  Catholicism.  He  had  long  ago  become  alienated  from  Gothic 
architecture,  which  had  once  appealed  so  strongly  to  his  feelings  as 
the  essentially  German  style,  but  now  he  went  even  further  and 
returned  wholly  to  the  stand-point  of  Oeser,  Winckelmann,  and 
Lessing.  Following  the  general  spirit  of  the  age,  he  Goethe’s 
no  longer  believed  in  one  only  saving  religion,  but  classicism, 
he  still  held  to  one  only  perfect  art,  the  one  true  style  which 
only  the  ancients  and  their  followers  possessed.  Classical  art  and 
the  Renaissance  alone  attracted  his  attention,  and  the  somewhat 
cold  Palladio  was  his  model  architect.  In  painting  he  almost 
entirely  overlooks  the  mediaeval  predecessors  of  Raphael  and 
Michael-Angelo,  while  he  highly  esteems  their  successors  of  the 
Venetian  school,  Caracci,  Domenichino,  and  Guido  Reni.  In  art, 
too,  he  does  not  care  for  history,  but  for  the  most  perfect  achieve¬ 
ment,  the  Ideal. 

After  his  return  from  Italy  he  developed  still  further  the  interests 
which  he  had  there  acquired.  The  4  Metamorphosis  ,  Metamor 
of  Plants’  appeared  as  a  treatise  in  1790,  and  later  on  phose  der 
as  a  poem;  he  also  gave  his  serious  attention  to  the  Pflanzen’ 
types  of  the  animal  world,  and  already  a  new  sphere  0-790). 
of  research  was  attracting  him,  namely,  the  science  of  colour.  But 
successful  as  he  was  in  adding  new  ideas  to  zoology  studies  in 
and  botany,  he  quite  failed  in  physics ;  he  strove  in  physics, 
vain  with  the  genius  of  Newton.  An  opposition,  similar  to  that 
between  Herder  and  Kant,  separated  him  from  the  enlightened 
school  of  the  eighteenth  century.  It  was  from  Mathematics 
that  that  school,  from  Newton  down  to  Kant,  drew  its  chief 
strength,  and  Goethe’s  mathematical  training  had  been  totally 
neglected.  It  was  the  tendency  of  modern  natural  science, 
since  Copernicus,  to  get  beyond  mere  sensuous  perception  and 
to  escape  its  illusions ;  but  the  poet  too  often  took  sensuous 
perception  for  direct  certainty.  Against  the  Newtonian  doctrine 
of  the  composite  nature  of  white  light  he  cherished  somewhat 
the  same  kind  of  hatred  which  Hamann  felt  for  analysis; 

4  distinguishing  and  counting,’  he  himself  says,  4  did  not  lie  in  my 
natre.’ 


M  2 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


164 


In  the  year  1791  Goethe  first  gave  utterance  to  his  opposition 
Goethe’s  t0  Newtonian  theories;  in  1810  he  completed  his 
‘Farben-  investigations,  and  though  they  contributed  nothing 
lehre,  1170.  to  phySics>  yet  they  gave  a  decided  impulse  to  physio¬ 
logical  optics.  The  sensuous  and  moral  influence  of  colour  was 
ably  discussed,  and  the  colouring  of  various  painters  submitted  to 
examination ;  the  history  of  the  science  of  colour  was  treated  as 
a  symbol  of  the  history  of  all  sciences,  and  the  whole  was  inter¬ 
woven  with  beautiful  and  pregnant  thoughts,  everywhere  opening 
wide  intellectual  vistas. 

Nature  and  Art  were  always  connected  in  Goethe’s  mind.  The 
consideration  of  colouring,  which  had  been  forced  upon  him  during 
his  sojourn  in  Italy,  had  given  the  impulse  to  his  researches  on  the 
theory  of  colour,  and  he  now  sought  to  systematise  and  simplify 
works  of  art  in  the  same  manner  as  he  had  surveyed  the  organic 
world.  We  have  said  that  Goethe  believed  that  the  manifold 
Goethe’s  fc>rms  of  plant  and  animal  life  had  been  developed 
views  on  from  primitive  forms,  from  original  types ;  in  the 
Art>  same  way  he  thought  he  had  reason  for  asserting  that 
the  Greek  sculptors  proceeded  after  the  method  followed  by  nature, 
that  they  set  out  from  the  general  type  of  man  and  followed  him 
in  all  his  differences  of  race,  age,  character,  expression,  and  that  in 
their  ideal  gods  they  disregarded  the  accidental  peculiarities  of 
individuals,  and  only  retained  the  essential,  typical  features  of 
humanity.  His  anatomical  knowledge  and  even  his  old  physio¬ 
gnomical  experiments  were  a  direct  advantage  to  him  in  his  study 
of  art.  The  various  fields  of  his  research  thus  reaped  mutual 
benefit  from  each  other,  and  he  seemed  at  this  period  to  feel  him¬ 
self  *  that  the  sum  total  of  his  powers  had  been  reached.’  In  such 
a  mood  we  find  him  writing  from  Rome,  that  he  would  hence¬ 
forth  only  occupy  himself  with  ‘  lasting  conditions,’  and  thus, 
following  the  doctrine  of  Spinoza,  would  give  immortality  to  his 
mind.  He  interwove  his  own  deepest  religious  and  philosophical 
convictions  with  the  types  of  ancient  mythology;  before  the 
highest  achievements  of  Greek  art  everything  arbitrary  and  fanciful 
seemed  to  him  to  fall  away :  ‘  Here  is  Necessity,’  he  exclaimed, 
‘here  is  God/ 


Ch.  XII.] 


Goethe . 


165 

In  his  art-studies  Goethe  had  found  a  companion  in  the  Swiss 
painter  Heinrich  Meyer,  whom  he  became  acquainted  Goethe  and 
with  in  Rome,  and  with  whom  he  soon  entered  into  Meyer, 
perfect  sympathy.  Together  with  Meyer  he  began  to  study  more 
closely  the  historical  aspect  of  art.  The  old  German  school  of  art 
was  to  be  studied  in  Niirnberg  and  Augsburg,  while  in  a  new 
journey  to  Italy  in  Meyer’s  company  the  mediaeval  Italian  art,  as 
specially  exemplified  in  Florence,  was  to  be  carefully  investigated. 
But  in  the  summer  and  autumn  of  1797  Goethe  only  got  as  far  as 
Switzerland,  where  he  met  Meyer ;  the  reports  which  he  furnishes  us 
of  these  months  show  again  a  marked  advance  on  the  style  of  the 
‘  Italian  journey.’  In  his  earlier  writings  Goethe  would  set  to  work 
without  much  system ;  now  everything  was  carried  on  methodically, 
and  the  material  was  arranged  as  in  a  report  of  a  scientific  journey. 
In  describing  his  well-known  native  town  of  Frankfort  he  tries  to 
put  himself  in  the  position  of  a  stranger,  seeing  it  for  the  first  time. 
He  uses  certain  tabulated  forms  of  description  in  order  to  gauge 
easily  and  accurately  peculiarities  of  country  and  people,  places  and 
individuals,  circumstances  and  works  of  art.  And  we  find  him  always 
inclined  to  consider  all  phenomena  not  only  as  existing,  but  as 
having  had  their  existence  developed  in  accordance  with  law,  to 
trace  out  their  causes  and  discover  the  forces  which  have  been  at 
work  in  their  production.  The  great  aim  which  floated  before  him 
in  all  these  enquiries  was  the  composition  of  comprehensive  works 
on  the  theory  and  history  of  art,  works  of  which  only  fragments 
were  ever  accomplished.  The  periodical  entitled  ‘The  peri0aiCal 
Propylaea’  (1798-1 800)  was  devoted  almost  exclusively  ‘  Die  Pro¬ 
to  the  same  object,  while  prize-competitions  in  painting  pylaen. 
and  art-exhibitions  supplied  practical  suggestions  in  the  same  direc¬ 
tion.  The  autobiography  of  Benvenuto  Cellini,  which  Goethe  trans¬ 
lated,  furnished  instruction  on  the  subject  of  Florentine  history, 
art,  and  skilled  handicraft.  The  work  entitled  £  Winck- 

f  Winckel- 

elmann  and  his  Century,’  which  appeared  in  1805,  mann  una. 
comprised  a  grand  account  of  Winckelmann  by  Goethe,  sein  Jahr- 
and  a  history  of  art  in  the  eighteenth  century  from  the  hundert, 
pen  of  Meyer.  A  history  of  colouring  by  Meyer  was  in¬ 
serted  in  Goethe’s  *  Theory  of  Colour.’  In  later  years  the  periodical 


1 66 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


Periodical, 

‘  Kunst  und 


by  Goetbe 
and  Meyer. 


entitled  ‘  Art  and  Antiquity  *  became  the  journalistic  organ  of  the 
Weimar  patrons  of  art,  as  these  two  allies  called  them¬ 
selves.  Their  views  on  art  suffered  no  perturbation 
Aiterthum,’  from  their  historical  studies,  or  from  the  new  tendencies 
published  which  were  coming  up  around  them  ;  they  remained 
faiihful  followers  of  Winckelmann,  and  worshipped 
ancient  art  as  the  only  ideal.  Goethe  adhered  faithfully 
to  the  stand-point  which  he  had  not  so  much  gained  as  confirmed 
in  Italy,  and  it  was  only  out  of  friendly  sympathy  for  others  that  he 
occasionally  returned  to  the  mediaeval  tendencies  of  his  youth. 

In  poetry,  as  in  art,  he  had  struck  out  in  the  direction  of  classical 

Good  effect  antacluily  even  before  his  sojourn  in  Italy.  This__ten- 
of  bis  Italian  dencv  jecame  stronger  anymore  fruitful  while  he  was 
journey  on  there,  though  he  never  carried  out  some  fine  dramatic 
him'  projects  which  floated  before  his  mind’s  eye  during 

his  first  days  in  Italy  and  Sicily,  plans  for  an  ‘  Iphigenia  in  Delphi/ 
and  a  ‘  Nausikaa/  But  in  another  respect  also  Italy  marked  a  great 
epoch  in  Goethe’s  poetry.  The  inner  character  of  his  poetry  as¬ 
sumed  a  totally  different  aspect  after  the  Italian  journey,  corres¬ 
ponding  to  a  complete  transformation  in  his  moral  character. 
From  his  early  youth  Italy  had  always  been  included  in  his  life’s 
programme,  and  the  more  the  difficulties  of  his  life  in  Weimar 
weighed  upon  him,  the  stronger  grew  his  yearning  for  the  South ; 
all  his  unsatisfied  longings  became  at  last  concentrated  in  the  wish 
for  this  journey.  The  yearning  was  now  fulfilled,  and  though  the 
parting  from  the  land  of  promise  was  the  cause  of  new  grief,  yet 
no  one  could  deprive  him  of  what  he  had  seen  and  enjoyed.  He 
rejoiced  in  the  wealth  he  had  acquired,  and  his  circumstances  in 
Weimar  were  now  also  arranged  in  full  accordance  with  his  wishes. 
Goethe  and  His  need  of  love  had  also  found  satisfaction ;  from 
Christiane  the  summer  of  1788  Christiane  Vulpius  possessed  his 
Vuipius.  heart?  and  afterwards  presided  over  his  household  ;  she 
was  the  daughter  of  a  Weimar  official,  pretty,  bright,  good-natured, 
simple-hearted,  and  devoted  with  her  whole  soul  to  her  lover.  It 
was  not  till  the  19th  of  October,  1806,  that  she  was  united  to 
Goethe  by  a  church-ceremony,  but  from  the  beginning  he  looked 
upon  her  as  his  wife,  and  though  this  connection  lost  him  the 


Ch.  XII.] 


Goethe . 


167 


friendship  of  Frau  von  Stein,  a  rupture  which  pained  him  deeply, 
yet  he  found  perfect  happiness  with  Christiane.  Poems  like  the 
‘  Morgenklagen,’  ‘  Der  Besuch,’  the  Roman  elegies  and  the  Vene¬ 
tian  epigrams  freely  reveal  his  feelings.  ‘  I  live,’  he  exclaims,  ‘  and 
were  hundreds  of  years  granted  to  men,  I  should  wish  the  morrow 
still  to  be  like  to-day.’  The  gods,  he  says,  have  given  him  all  that 
man  can  pray  for,  and  he  describes  his  beloved  in  this  beautiful 
simile  :  *  I  went  along  the  sea-shore,  seeking  shells ;  in  one  I  found 
a  pearl,  which  now  remains  treasured  near  my  heart.’  (‘  Venezi- 
anische  Epigramme,’  93,  94,  28.) 

This  final  satisfaction,  this  earthly  happiness,  estranged  him  from 
the  refined  and  delicate  sentiment  which  breathes  in  His  poetry 
‘Iphigenie  ’  and  ‘  Tasso.’  His  poems  are  no  longer  full  becomes 
of  yearning,  nor  are  they  so  spiritual  in  character.  The  more  real- 
purely  intellectual  tone  disappeared.  Werther  and  Tasso  are  more 
closely  akin  to  each  other  than  Tasso  and  the  Roman  elegies.  The 
coarser  elements  of  Goethe’s  youth  came  again  to  the  front ;  he  be¬ 
came,  to  use  his  own  expression,  realistic.  He  was  in  his  thirty-ninth 
year  when  he  returned  from  Italy,  and  he  meant  henceforth  to  write 
nothing  which  a  mature  man  who  knew  the  world  would  not  read 
and  enjoy.  As  on  his  journeys  he  gazed  calmly  around  him,  observed 
things  as  they  were,  and  reproduced  them  without  adding  to  them, 
so  in  his  poetry  he  now  gave  up  extravagant  sentiment,  and  sought 
above  all  to  be  true  to  reality.  There  is  no  reference  now  to  the 
ideal  of  renunciation,  no  rosy  gleam  borrowed  from  the  next  world ; 
his  poems  now  treat  of  earthly  passion  and  earthly  enjoyment,  love 
of  the  good,  the  useful,  and  the  beautiful ;  they  express  reverence 
for  what  is  great,  gratefulness  to  a  kind  master,  faithfulness  to 
friends,  and  are  not  sparing  in  censuring  bunglers,  enthusiasts,  and 
deceivers  of  the  people. 

In  the  Roman  elegies,  which  are  modelled  after  Propertius,  the 
poet  transfers  to  Rome  the  happiness  which  he  had  Tlie 
found  at  Weimar.  With  the  elegiac  metre  of  the  ‘Romische 
ancients  the  mythological  figures  appear  again,  which  Elesien- 
Goethe  had  discarded  in  his  youth  at  Herder’s  demand ;  but  the 
beauty  of  these  poems  is  never  disturbed  by  dry  pedantry  or  piled- 
up  allusions,  as  is  the  case  sometimes  with  the  Roman  poets.  Here 


i6  8 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XII. 


we  have  either  clear  personifications,  like  Fama  and  Amor,  or 
sharply-outlined  figures  whom  the  poet  endows  with  such  real, 
present  life  that  their  name  is  quite  a  matter  of  indifference,  or  else 
a  revival  of  some  myth  under  a  new  form.  It  is  true  that  even  thus 
the  introduction  of  gods  and  heroes  in  these  poems  prevented  their 
acquiring  a  wide  popularity ;  but  these  plain-spoken  love-poems  are 
not  meant  to  be  popular;  they  presuppose  mature  manhood,  ripe 
experience  of  life,  and  classical  culture.  To  the  classical  scholar  they 
seem  to  excel  Propertius,  for  what  Propertius  only  occasionally 
succeeds  in  is  here  characteristic  of  the  whole,  namely,  graphic 
scene  and  action.  These  Roman  elegies  are  a  series  of  beautiful 
pictures,  with  all  the  added  charm  of  life  and  movement.  None 
furnishes  a  more  brilliant  example  of  what  we  mean  than  the  short 
elegy  (No.  n)  in  which  Goethe  lays  these  poems  on  the  altar  of  the 
Graces,  rejoicing  that  he  may  do  so,  since  the  high  ideals  of  the  gods 
surround  him,  amongst  whom  Love  should  not  be  absent ;  in  four 
distichs  he  portrays  and  characterizes  seven  gods  and  goddesses, 
so  clearly  and  yet  with  such  simple  words  that  it  is  evident  that 
h:s  art  was  formed  more  under  the  influence  of  Homer  than  of 
Propertius.  Lessing’s  and  Herder’s  theory  of  poetry  founded  on 
the  study  of  Homer,  which  Goethe  had  imbibed  in  his  youth,  here 
came  to  reinforce  his  rich  knowledge  of  classical  sculpture,  and 
enabled  him  to  handle  the  worthiest  subject  with  unsurpassable  skill. 
Revival  of  ^he  creations  of  Greek  religion  and  art  had 

classical  been  the  chief  subject  of  Goethe’s  studies  while  in 
elements  in  Rome,  and  in  these  elegies  he  shows  that  the  classical 
his  poetry.  •(jea^s  0f  humanity  still  exercised  their  power  over  his 
mind ;  the  classical  gods  now  appear  again  in  his  poetry,  and 
the  artistic  conception  which  he  had  formed  of  them  now  bore 
the  ripest  poetic  fruit.  In  reading  the  Roman  elegies  we  seem 
indeed  to  feel  that  £  the  sum  total  of  his  powers  had  been  reached/ 
As  in  art  and  nature,  so  too  in  poetry  he  now  sought  after 
Typical  t^ie  typical.  Formerly  he  had  turned  away  from  the 
method  in  human  heart,  the  most  capricious  part  of  creation, 
art  and  and  m  order  to  make  something  permanent  and  im- 
poetry.  mu table  his  object  of  worship  had  directed  his  atten¬ 

tion  to  stones ;  but  now  he  learnt  also  to  discover  and  portray  the 


Ch.  X 1 1 .] 


Goethe. 


169 


unchangeable,  the  ‘  lasting  relations  ’  in  the  moral  world,  such  as  the 
family,  the  home,  the  neighbourhood,  the  community,  the  state,  the 
contrast  between  the  settled  and  unsettled,  or  the  active  and  the  con¬ 
templative  life,  or  the  life  of  selfish  pleasure  and  the  life  of  renuncia¬ 
tion  (‘Die  Wahlverwandtschaften  ’) ;  and  for  this  very  reason  the 
Greek  gods  assumed  new  importance  for  him,  since  they  too  denote 
lasting  types  in  the  moral  world.  At  an  earlier  period  Goethe  would 
at  once  mark  the  genus  to  which  the  individual  belonged,  as  in 
‘  Iphigenie  ’  he  only  used  Diana  as  a  name  for  the  Divine  gene¬ 
rally,  and  in  Iphigenia  herself  created  a  type  of  ideal  womanhood ; 
but  now,  on  the  contrary,  he  sought  for  those  typical  forms  which 
lie  between  the  individual  and  the  genus.  The  difference  between 
Goethe’s  earlier  and  later  method  is  most  apparent  The 
in  the  ‘Natural  Daughter,’  a  play  produced  about  the  ‘Natiirliche 
year  1800.  Here  we  have  a  duke  who  educates  his  Tochter. 
child  in  seclusion ;  the  girl  fulfils  all  his  expectations,  and  grows 
up  to  be  his  chief  delight,  but  following  an  impulse  of  pride,  he 
shows  her  too  early  to  the  world,  and  thereby  excites  the  envy  of 
his  son,  who  thinks  his  interests  are  prejudiced  by  her;  the  son 
secures  her  secret  removal,  and  the  duke  is  made  to  believe  that 
she  is  dead.  We  leave  him  lamenting  over  the  grave  of  his  lost 
happiness.  Here  Goethe  shows  us  the  typical  father  from  all  sides; 
whatever  else  may  characterize  the  man,  it  is  the  paternal  nature 
which  is  made  most  prominent ;  the  incidents  which  are  developed 
before  us,  the  tragic  issue  which  we  see  approaching,  all  this 
results  from  paternal  pride.  The  typical  element  is  the  chief  spring 
of  action,  and  it  is  a  primitive  human  relation  that  is  presented 
before  our  eyes. 

The  new  style  which  Goethe  had  acquired  through  his  journey 
to  Italy  first  showed  itself  in  his  Roman  elegies.  The 
love  represented  in  ‘Tasso’  presupposes  high  culture, 
moral  refinement,  strong  outward  restraints,  strange 
inward  distortion,  and  the  peculiar  circumstances  of 
a  court  where  the  poet  is  cherished  and  treated  with 
much  consideration  on  account  of  his  talent.  Tasso’s 
love  and  its  passionate  outburst  is,  like  Tasso’s  whole  character,  a 
pathological  phenomenon,  an  abnormal  case,  a  ‘  rarity  in  natural 


Comparison 
between 
‘  Tasso  ’ 
and  the 
Roman 
elegies. 


jyo 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


history/  as  Fritz  Jacobi  would  have  said.  The  poet' bn  the  con¬ 
trary,  who  in  the  Roman  Elegies  sings  of  his  own  feelings  and 
experiences,  reveals  himself  as  a  thoroughly  healthy  and  natural 
human  being ;  and  the  love  which  he  describes  is  the  primitive 
human  phenomenon — two  people  who  are  attracted  to  each  other, 
then  devoted  to  each  other  with  body  and  soul,  who  overcome  all 
hindrances  in  order  to  possess  each  other,  and  who  forget  the  world 
around  them,  and  even  defy  it  where  they  think  it  necessary  to  do 
so  ;  it  is  the  thing  which  repeats  itself  in  all  ages,  among  all  nations, 
in  all  classes,  and  here  only  shines  with  immortal  glory  through  the 
charm  of  art. 

Schiller  and  Goethe. 


his  return 
from  Italy. 


Notwithstanding  the  high  point  of  development  which  Goethe’s 
powers  had  attained,  notwithstanding  the  wonderful  co-operation  of 
his  various  intellectual  interests,  still,  the  first  years  after  his  return 
from  Italy  were  not  favourable  to  his  activity  as  a 
Goethe’s  Poet*  His  artistic  and  scientific  studies  exercised  a 
poetic  activ-  more  powerful  attraction  over  him,  and  seemed  to  ab- 
ity  after  SOrb  all  his  intellectual  powers."  The  more  he  found 
full  satisfaction  in  the  intellectual  and  domestic  world 
in  which  he  was  now  living,  the  less  did  he  feel  the 
need  of  disclosing  his  inner  experiences  to  the  outside  world.  With 
the  departure  of  those  dissatisfied  yearnings  which  had  filled  his  soul 
in  earlier  years,  his  poetry  had  been  deprived  of  part  of  the  air  in 
which  it  used  to  breathe.  Yet  another  reason  may  be  assigned  for 
his  poetical  barrenness  at  this  time.  In  the  years  1792  and  1793 
His  he  took  part,  in  company  with  his  princely  master,  in 

military  the  campaign  in  Champagne  and  in  the  siege  of  Mainz; 

experiences.  gj-jp  further  expanded  his  horizon,  and  the  reports 
which  he  compiled  from  his  diaries  of  this  period  are  models  of 
graphic  description.  They  contain  nothing  but  what  he  has  him¬ 
self  seen,  and  show  the  unerring  accuracy  of  observation  which  he 
had  acquired  while  in  Italy.  But  these  military  experiences  con¬ 
tributed  further  to  strengthen  his  realism,  and  in  fact  at  this  period 
of  his  life  all  his  finer  and  tenderer  sentiments  and  emotions 
seemed  benumbed,  and  threatened  to  be  extinguished  altogether. 
Then,  suddenly,  his  intercourse  with  Schiller  gave  him  a  new 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  and  Goethe . 


171 


poetic  impulse,  and  called  him,  as  he  said,  out  of  the  charnel-house 
of  science  back  into  the  fair  garden  of  life. 

During  Goethe’s  absence  in  Italy  Schiller  had  come  to  Weimar. 
In  the  spring  of  1789  he  was  made  Professor  in  Jena,  Schiller 
and  Goethe  had  to  write  the  official  report  of  his  made  Pro¬ 
appointment.  But  no  approach  towards'  intimacy  lessor  in 
between  the  two  men  was  made  till  the  sum-  ’ 
mer  of  1794,  so  long  was  it  before  Goethe  could  overcome  the 
aversion  which  Schiller’s  youthful  dramas  had  awakened  in  him, 
and  which  had  not  been  diminished  by  his  ‘  Don  Carlos.’  Com¬ 
mon  personal  interests  and  acquaintances,  and  Schiller’s  journalistic 
activity  now  established  an  outward  connection  which  soon  de¬ 
veloped  into  the  closest  friendship. 

While  Goethe  had  for  years  observed  a  dignified  reserve,  contri¬ 
buting  to  hardly  any  periodicals,  and  in  fact  only  writing  for  himself 
and  his  nearest  circle  of  acquaintance,  Schiller  on  the  contrary  was 
in  continual  -contact  with  the  public.  Since  1787  he  had  published 
a  succession  of  Year-books  and  Calendars,  and  had 
furnished  poems,  essays,  or  reviews  for  other  periodi-  gains  Goethe 
cals.  Now,  in  the  year  1795,  he  wished  to  start  a  new  as  a  con- 
monthly  magazine,  ‘  die  Horen  ’  (‘  the  Hours  ’).  He  (^lb^or  to, 
first  gained  the  services  of  a  few  important  collabora¬ 
tors,  who  were  friends  of  Goethe’s,  and  then  in  his  and  their  name 
invited  Goethe  to  become  one  of  the  contributors.  A  somewhat 
cool  yet  encouraging  consent  was  the  result  of  the  petition ;  but 
on  Goethe’s  next  visit  to  Jena  an  important  conversation  took  place 
between  him  and  Schiller,  in  the  course  of  which  it  became  appa¬ 
rent  to  both  that  there  was  more  sympathy  between  them  than  they 
had  supposed.  After  this  visit  Goethe  wrote,  expressing  his  hope 
of  a  further  exchange  of  ideas,  and  Schiller  answered 

with  a  letter  summing  up  Goethe’s  character  and  friendship 

0  r  #  between 

career,  and  intended  to  show  him  that  no  German  had  Schiller 
so  thoroughly  understood  his  whole  nature,  and  so  and  Gosthe. 


Their  cor¬ 
respondence. 


clearly  recognised  his  worth  as  Schiller.  From  this 
moment  an  alliance  was  formed  between  them,  and 
that  correspondence  was  begun  which  is  the  best  monument  of  their 
friendship.  Their  letters  contain  unreserved  communications  on  all 


172 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


Schiller 
incites 
Goethe  to 


their  aesthetic  and  scientific  labours,  reciprocal  criticisms,  generous 
advice,  frank  acknowledgement  of  one  another’s  merits,  manifold 
judgments  on  collaborators,  opponents,  and  other  contemporaries, 
detailed  discussions  on  matters  of  principle  and  questions  of  tech¬ 
nique  in  poetry,  and  especially  on  the  difference  between  the  epic 
and  the  drama.  For  the  space  of  eleven  years,  from  1794  till 
Schiller’s  early  death  in  1805,  there  was  not  a  trace  of  a  quarrel 
between  them,  not  the  slightest  diminution  of  personal  affection  or 
of  sympathy  in  each  other’s  interests  and  labours.  During  these 
eleven  years  no  one  stood  so  near  to_Goethe_a&  Schiller.  Herder 
had  become  estranged  from  him,  and  in  his  aesthetic  development 
no  longer  advanced  but  rather  retrogressed ;  Wieland  had  passed 
his  best  years,  while  Schiller’s  highest  powers  were  yet  undeveloped. 

Schiller’s  grand  intellectual  and  imaginative  achieve¬ 
ments  spurred  his  more  deliberate  friend,  older  than 
himself  by  ten  years,  to  fresh  poetical  activity.  As 
fresh  poetic  questions  of  art  were  discussed  with  Meyer,  so  now 
literary  matters  were  discussed  with  Schiller.  Goethe 
now  sought  as  it  were  to  conquer  the  field  of  poetry  anew,  both  in 
theory  and  in  practice.  Now  for  the  first  time  he  tried  to  practise 
poetry  with  a  conscious  resort  to  all  rules  of  art,  with  a  perfect 
mastery  in  all  its  styles,  and  with  a  methodical  selection  of  his  subjects. 
He  endeavoured  to  acquire  once  for  all  that  perfect  dominion  of  the 
will  over  the  creative  power,  which  he  had  already  manifested  in 
completing  his  ‘  Tasso,’  when  the  subject  no  longer  appealed  to  his 
sympathy.  To  use  his  own  words,  he  learnt. to  command  poetry. 

The  supremacy  of  Weimar  in  German  literature,  for  which  Wie¬ 
land  and  Herder  had  helped  to  lay  the  foundation,  was  now  an 
The  ‘ Horen,’  accomplished  fact.  In  Weimar  alone  could  a  period- 
1795-97.  ical  like  Schiller’s  ‘  Horen  ’  have  been  started.  The 
plan  on  which  it  was  based  showed  extreme  boldness.  The  most 
eminent  representatives  of  German  literature  dared  in  this  periodical 
to  run  counter  to  the  spirit  of  the  times.  According  to  Kant’s 
testimony,  there  were  at  that  time  no  subjects  of  interest  to  the 
general  reading  public  beyond  affairs  of  state  and  matters  of  re¬ 
ligion.  Since  1789  the  French  Revolution  and  its  consequences 
had  made  political  discussion  in  Germany,  as  elsewhere,  the  order 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  and  Goethe. 


l73 


of  the  day ;  and  religion  was  the  great  theme  of  the  party  of  en¬ 
lightenment,  and  was  handled  with  brilliant  success  by  the  Berlin 
journalists.  But  these  very  subjects  of  politics  and  religion  were 
excluded  from  the  ‘Horen/  and  all  light  entertainment  was  likewise 
banished.  This  periodical  was  to  re-unite  the  politically  divided 
world  under  the^  banner  of  truth  and  beau  tv  .^Tt  was  to  look  beyond 
the  confined  interests  of  the  present,  and  to  turn  its  attention  to 
the  purely  human  elements  which  are  raised  above  the  influence 
of  the  age. 

The  new  periodical  was  to  be  edited  from  Jena,  and  was  to  es¬ 
tablish  itself  there  as  a  magazine  for  original  production  by  the  side 
of  the  Jena  Literary  Newspaper,  which  was  a  purely  critical  organ. 
Schiller  enlisted  a  brilliant  force  of  collaborators  ;  every  department 
was  represented  by  the  highest  talents,  and  yet  he  over-estimated 
their  power ;  in  part  he  credited  his  readers  with  a  greater  capacity 
for  severe  thought  than  they  really  possessed,  in  part  the  articles  pre¬ 
supposed  a  higher  aesthetic  culture  than  had  yet  found  its  way  into 
wider  circles.  And  thus  the  spirit  of  the  times  proved  the  stronger, 
and  the  existence  of  the  *  Horen  ’  could  not  be  prolonged  beyond 
three  years,  1795,  179b,  and  1797.  The  fame  of  the  editor  and  his 
colleagues  had  been  exceedingly  great,  and  the  first  success  sur¬ 
passed  all  expectations.  But  disillusionment  soon  set  in ;  the  discon¬ 
tent  of  the  public  was  nourished  and  turned  to  account  by  the  critics, 
and  the  fate  of  the  ‘  Horen’  clearly  showed  that  in  dismembered 
Germany  the  culture  of  single  individuals  and  small  circles  might 
attain  a  high  level  without  the  whole  nation  having  any  share  in  it. 

Besides  the  ‘  Horen  ’  Schiller  published  annually,  from  the  years 

1796-1800,  a  *  Musenalmanach/  which  contained  the  The 

best  productions  of  contemporary  lyric  poetry.  The  ‘Musen- 

‘  Musenalmanach ’  for  1797,  published  in  September  almanach,’ 

1796,  contained  Goethe  and  Schiller’s  famous ‘Xenien/  1796  180°- 

four  hundred  and  fourteen  distichs,  mostly  of  a  satirical  nature, 

in  which  the  contrast  between  the  allies  of  Weimar  _ 

Goethe  and 

and  their  literary  contemporaries  found  drastic  ex-  Schiller’s 
pression.  These  productions  of  mingled  wit  and  ‘  Xenien,’ 
rudeness  contained  poisonous  arrows  which  were  sure 
to  wound,  annihilating  criticisms,  finest  traits  of  characterization, 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XII, 


1 74 


pregnant  judgments,  all  arranged  in  groups  with  powerful  dramatic 
effect,  and  concluded  by  a  grand  scene  in  the  lower  world.  The 
chastising  answers  to  the  critics  of  the  ‘  Horen  ’  were  here  expanded 
into  a  satirical  picture  of  the  whole  of  German  contemporary  litera¬ 
ture.  Older  poets  whose  power  was  gone,  the  lights  of  the  day 
who  pandered  to  the  common  taste,  the  shallow  apostles  of  en¬ 
lightenment,  the  insignificant  journals  were  all  shrivelled  up  and 
consumed  in  the  fire  of  the  criticism  of  these  two  great  writers. 
Lessing  had  occasionally  given  utterance  to  scathing  judgments  of 
the  same  kind,  and  in  fact,  such  sweeping  criticism  was  essayed  by 
many  during  the  so-called  period  of  genius,  being  fostered  by  the 
rapid  development  of  German  literature,  in  which  even  men  of  great 
merits  were  soon  superannuated. 

The  ‘  Musenalmanach  *  for  1797  created  an  indescribable  sensa- 
Effect  tion ;  two  thousand  copies  were  immediately  bought 
of  the  up,  and  many  rejoinders  and  innumerable  criticisms 
‘Xenien.  SOon  made  their  appearance.  But  few  of  the  retorts 
on  the  authors  of  the  cruel  distichs  rose  above  tame  wit  and  low 
sentiment.  The  justice  of  the  attack  was  clearly  proved  by  the 
miserable  weakness  of  the  defence,  and  a  continuation  of  the  war¬ 
fare  was  unnecessary.  The  fame  of  Goethe  and  Schiller  increased 
unchecked.  Goethe  had  compared  the  state  of  German  literature 
about  1790  to  an  aristocratic  anarchy,  in  which  Klopstock,  Wie- 
land,  Gleim,  Herder,  and  Goethe  each  ruled  his  own  little  kingdom  ; 
but  now,  this  anarchy  had  to  yield  completely  to  a  duumvirate,  a 
continuous  Consulate.  The  struggle  with  the  spirit  of  the  times 
steeled  the  powers  of  the  two  allies.  What  the  ‘  Horen  ’  had  failed 
in  was  accomplished  by  the  terrible  system  of  the  ‘  Xenien/  by  the 
publication  of  new  poetic  works  of  art,  and  by  a  systematic  activity 
in  connection  with  the  Weimar  stage. 

From  1791  to  1817  Goethe  was  the  director  of  the  newly- 
The  founded  Weimar  Court  Theatre,  which  under  his 
German  guidance  passed  through  its  greatest  epoch.  Karl 
stage.  August,  in  erecting  this  theatre,  was  following  an  ex¬ 

ample  already  set  by  several  other  German  princes.  After  the 
failure  of  the  Hamburg  attempt  under  Lessing’s  auspices  to  esta¬ 
blish  a  national  theatre,  German  princes  had  taken  up  the  cause  of 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  and  Goethe . 


375 


the  German  drama.  In  Vienna  the  long  patronised  French  actors 
were  dismissed,  and  Joseph  II,  in  1776,  gave  to  the  Burg-Theater 
the  title  of  Court  and  National  Theatre.  The  Court  Theatre  at 
Gotha,  founded  in  1775,  had,  it  is  true,  but  a  short-lived  existence, 
but  its  best  members  were  transferred  to  the  new  Mannheim 
National  Theatre,  started  in  1779.  After  the  death  of  Frederick  the 
Great  the  former  French  play-house,  on  the  Gendarme-market  in 
Berlin,  was  given  up  to  the  German  drama,  and  opened  as  the 
Royal  National  Theatre  on  the  5th  of  December,  1 786.  Actors  and 
A  considerable  number  of  eminent  actors  and  a  few  play-writers, 
real  geniuses  exercised  their  powers  on  these  and  other  stages. 
Ekhof,  who  died  in  Gotha,  satisfied  even  Lessing’s  demands,  while 
Schroder,  the  step-son  of  Ackermann  (see  p.  468),  embodied  the 
tendencies  of  the  ‘  Storm  and  Stress  ’  movement.  Schroder  was 
director  of  the  Hamburg  theatre  from  1771  to  1780,  and  then  again 
from  1786  to  1798  ;  between  these  two  periods  he  acted  in  Mann¬ 
heim  and  Vienna,  and  everywhere  incited  people  to  emulate  him. 
He  produced  the  master-pieces  of  Shakspeare  on  the  German  stage, 
he  attracted  remarkable  disciples,  and  personally  he  passed  through 
the  whole  scale  of  theatrical  achievements,  from  the  ballet-dancer 
and  clown  to  the  first-rate  tragedian.  Both  Ekhof  and  Schroder 
considered  truth  to  nature  as  the  highest  law  for  the  dramatist  and 
the  actor.  Iffland,  Ekhof's  pupil  and  an  admirer  of  Schroder, 
was  for  long  the  chief  ornament  of  the  Mannheim  theatre,  and 
afterwards,  from  1796  to  1814,  Director  of  the  Berlin  theatre  ;  he 
surpassed  both  Ekhof  and  Schroder  in  refinement  and  delicacy 
of  feeling,  but  being  less  strong  in  natural  genius,  had  to  replace 
this  want  by  careful  study  and  skilful  calculation  of  effect. 

Schroder  and  Iffland,  like  many  other  actors  at  this  time,  tried 
their  hand  at  dramatic  authorship,  and  became  most  Schroder 
fertile  writers.  Both  sought  chiefly  to  reproduce  in  and  iffland’s 
their  dramas  the  private  life  of  the  middle-classes,  and  dramas, 
thereby  to  supplant  the  chivalrous  dramas  which  had  sprung  up  like 
mushrooms  in  the  footsteps  of  Goethe’s  £  Gotz.’  Schroder  borrowed 
much  from  English  comedies;  he  seldom  pandered  to  the  fashion¬ 
able  sentimentality,  but  on  the  contrary  turned  it  to  ridicule  on 
several  occasions.  Iffland  on  the  other  hand  was  for  the  most  part  an 


176 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


original  author,  and  his  chief  strength  lay  in  drawing  affecting  pic¬ 
tures  of  real  life.  None  of  Schroder’s  pieces  are  now  acted,  while 
Iffland’s  ‘  Hagestolzen’  (Bachelors)  and  ‘Jager’  are  still  always 
witnessed  with  pleasure.  Contemporary  with  these  two  dramatists, 
Kotzebue’s  and  after  them,  August  von  Kotzebue  ruled  the  German 

piays.  stage  till  about  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century.  His 
play  entitled  ‘  Menschenhass  und  Reue,’  with  which  he  began  his 
career  in  1789,  at  once  produced  a  great  sensation,  reaching  even 
beyond  Germany.  No  one  entered  so  thoroughly  into  the  ordinary  in¬ 
stincts  of  the  masses,  no  one  could  flatter  them  so  cleverly,  and  no  one 
arranged  dramatic  effects  so  conveniently  for  the  actor  as  Kotzebue. 

v  J 

He  cultivated  not  only  the  middle-class  drama,  but  also  the  chivalrous 
drama,  comedy,  and  farce.  In  him  as  in  Iffland  the  tendencies  of 
the  period  of  the  literary  Revolution  lived  on.  They  were  both  fol¬ 
lowers  of  Rousseau,  taking  up  the  party  of  nature  as  against  civil¬ 
ization,  and  offering  a  somewhat  tame  opposition  to  the  established 
order  of  government.  But  Iffland’s  decided  moral  tendency  gives 
place  in  Kotzebue  to  an  apotheosis  of  licentiousness  draped  in  the 
guise  of  virtue.  In  his  plays  sentimental  toleration  and  cheap 
emotion  are  allowed  to  overthrow  the  traditional  ideas  of  morality, 
and  generally  recognised  rules  of  conduct  are  ridiculed  as  European 
prejudice.  His  caricature  of  humanity  renders  all  great  tragic  con¬ 
flicts  impossible,  and  his  chief  idea  seems  to  be  to  force  vice  and 
misery  upon  us  in  all  their  nudity. 

Lessing’s  ‘  Minna’  and  ‘  Emilia/  Goethe’s  ‘  Gotz/  ‘Clavigo,’  and 
‘  Stella,’  and  Schiller’s  youthful  dramas  emerge  as  single  points  of 
light  among  the  productions  of  Schroder,  Iffland,  and  Kotzebue, 
and  the  other  still  more  insignificant  plays  which  satisfied  the  shallow 
taste  of  this  period.  ‘  Nathan,’  ‘Iphigenie,’  and  ‘  Tasso  ’  could  not 
be  put  upon  the  stage.  Hardly  any  attempt  was  made  to  take  up 
the  Iambic  tragedy,  and  prose  still  asserted  its  predominance. 
Under  the  plea  of  naturalness  common-place  reality  reigned  supreme 
both  in  matter  and  form  during  the  whole  second  half  of  the  last 
century.  But  as  the  drama  had  already  freed  itself  from  the  bom¬ 
bastic  Alexandrine,  so  now  it  was  gradually  to  adopt  the  nobler 
iambic  metre. 

Meanwhile  the  Opera,  with  German,  French,  or  Italian  words,  and 


Schiller  and  Goethe . 


Ch.  XII.] 


177 


Theatre, 

1791-1817. 


music  by  German  composers,  attained  its  highest  perfection.  The 
drama  had  still  to  compete  with  the  Opera,  and  could  The  opera, 
not  free  itself  or  the  public  from  its  influence.  Com-  Gluck  and 
posers  of  slight,  popular  talent,  such  as  Dittersdorf  Mozart, 
and  Wenzel  Muller,  followed  in  Hiller's  steps  in  the  cultivation 
of  the  operetta.  Gluck  separated  himself  from  the  Italian  vir¬ 
tuoso  school,  and  succeeded  in  endowing  the  serious  opera  with  the 
truth  of  the  drama,  giving  it  expressive  declamation  and  char¬ 
acteristic  music.  Mozart  avoided  the  faults  of  the  Italian  school, 
though  he  did  not  entirely  separate  himself  from  it ;  he  learnt 
much  from  Gluck,  and  surpassed  all  his  predecessors  in  his  im¬ 
mortal  series  of  musical  dramas,  ranging  from  the  ‘  Entfiihrung  aus 
dem  Serail '  to  the  ‘  Zauberflote.’ 

It  was  in  1791,  the  year  of  the  production  of  the  ‘  Zauberflote/ 
and  of  Mozart’s  death,  that  Goethe  undertook  the 
direction  of  the  Weimar  Court  Theatre.  He  too  took  director  of 
an  interest  in  the  opera,  and  provided  good  German  the  Weimar 
text-books  for  it,  but  by  the  side  of  the  opera  he  also 
gradually  formed  a  repertoire  of  good  plays.  His  own 
theories  and  practice  in  art  and  Heinrich  Meyer’s  counsel  and  aid 
were  turned  to  advantage  in  providing  decorations  and  costumes. 
Goethe  took  the  best  actor  as  his  standard,  and  sought  to  train  the 
'others  up  to  his  level.  He  extended  the  warmest  personal  sym¬ 
pathy  to  willing  talents,  as,  for  instance,  to  the  actress  Christiane 
Neumann,  whom  he  trained  in  the  part  of  Arthur  in  Shakspeare’s 
‘  King  John,’  and  whose  memory  he  celebrated  after  her  early  death 
in  the  beautiful  elegy,  ‘  Euphrosyne/  But  at  first  Goethe  avoided 
difficult  or  hazardous  enterprises.  The  talents  which  he  had  at  his 
command  were  not  of  first-class  order,  and  his  theatre  was  but  little 
above  the  average  of  German  theatres,  although  it  produced  upon 
its  boards  Schiller’s  ‘  Don  Carlos/  ‘  Egmont  ’  (in  Schiller’s  arrange¬ 
ment),  and  also  a  few  plays  of  Shakspeare  in  a  sim¬ 
plified  form,  as  acted,  for  instance,  by  Schroder.  But 
with  Schiller’s  newly-awakened  dramatic  activity  the 
Weimar  theatre  rose  to  a  much  higher  level.  Between 
October,  1798, and  March,  1804,  ‘Wallenstein’s  Lager/ 

‘  The  Piccolomini/  ‘  Wallenstein’s  Death/  ‘  Mary  Stuart/  *  The 

VOL.  II. 


High  level 
of  the  stage 
under  his 
manage¬ 
ment. 


i78 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


Bride  of  Messina/  the  ‘Maid  of  Orleans/  and  ‘Wilhelm  Tel)/  were 
all  produced  at  Weimar.  Schiller,  who  since  December  1799  no 
longer  lived  in  Jena  but  in  Weimar,  shared  with  Goethe  the  labours 
of  rehearsals  and  of  providing  scenery.  Goethe  now  became  yet  more 
zealous  in  his  exertions,  and  his  ideas  of  dramatic  art  rose  still  higher. 
He  resolved  to  introduce  upon  his  stage  the  most  ideal  form  of 
drama,  the  drama  in  blank  verse.  After  most  careful  training  of 
the  actors,  Lessing’s  ‘  Nathan  ’  and  Goethe’s  iambic  plays  were 
produced  for  the  first  time  on  the  stage,  and  soon  even  Terence, 
Plautus,  and  Sophocles  were  revived  by  the  bold  managers  of  the 
Weimar  Theatre.  Shakspeare’s  plays  were  revised  with  a  view 
of  bringing  them  more  into  harmony  with  the  demands  of  the 
classical  drama,  and  Calderon  also  was  turned  to  account.  Goethe’s 
.‘Gotz’  underwent  several  alterations.  Masques  were  first  intro¬ 
duced  in  Terence's  ‘  Brothers,’  and  were  after  that  often  made  use 
of;  and  Schiller  made  a  German  version  of  an  Italian  Masque, 
Gozzi’s  ‘Turandot.’  The  desire  to  extend  the  repertoire  of  the  ideal 
drama,  and  at  the  same  time  to  meet  the  taste  of  the  duke,  led 
Goethe  and  Schiller  to  resort  to  French  tragedy.  Goethe  changed 
Voltaire’s  ‘Mahomet  '  and  ‘Tancred’  from  Alexandrines  into  ordi¬ 
nary  iambics,  and  Schiller  did  the  same  for  Racine’s  ‘  Phedre ;’  new 
versions  were  also  made  by  other  hands  of  Racine’s  1  Mithridate  ’ 
and  Corneille’s  ‘  Cid.’ 

In  the  outside  world  no  one  followed  the  progress  of  the  Weimar 
Theatre  with  greater  interest  than  Iffiand.  He  was 
the  same  age  as  Schiller  and  had  begun  his  literary 
career  about  the  same  time,  and  Schiller’s  first  triumphs 
on  the  Mannheim  stage  had  been  -due  in  part  to  Iff- 
land’s  co-operation.  He  acted  frequently  in  Weimar, 
and  this  brought  him  into  personal  contact  with  Goethe.  At  first 
his  example  influenced  the  young  theatre,  but  later  on  he  himself 
received  suggestions  from  it.  As  theatrical  manager  in  Berlin  he 
endeavoured  to  produce  Schiller’s  new  plays  on  his  stage  as  soon 
as  possible  after  their  representation  in  Weimar;  the  ‘Maid  of  Or¬ 
leans  ’  was  performed  in  Berlin  and  in  a  few  other  places  before  it 
appeared  on  the  Weimar  stage.  After  Iffland’s  death  Count  Biiihl 
assumed  the  management  of  his  theatre  ;  he  too  was  a  worshipper 


Influence 
of  the 
Weimar 
Theatre  on 
others. 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  and  Goethe. 


179 


of  Goethe,  and  endeavoured  to  work  in  Goethe’s  spirit,  but  he  had 
not  the  power  or  the  taste  to  exclude  from  his  stage  the  miserable 
French  melodramas  which  were  then  the  fashion  everywhere. 
It  was  one  of  these  wretched  melodramas,  the  performance  of 
which  Karl  August  commanded  and  Goethe  strenuously  opposed, 
which  put  an  end  to  the  classical  period  of  the  Goethe’s 
Weimar  stage,  for  Goethe  lost  his  appointment  of  dismissal, 
manager  in  consequence  of  his  opposition  to  the  duke’s  wishes. 

Goethe’s  own  dramatic  writings  reaped  little  advantage  from  his 
official  connection  with  the  stage.  His  position  offered  Goethe’s 
him,  it  is  true,  frequent  opportunities,  which  he  always  dramatic 
gladly  availed  himself  of,  for  composing  stage-speeches,  writings  in 
prologues  and  short  pieces  for  special  occasions ;  but  this  period- 
though  much  that  was  beautiful  thus  came  to  light,  still,  after 
‘  Tasso,’  Goethe  did  not  for  several  decades  achieve  any  truly  great 
dramatic  work.  About  the  end  of  the  century  ‘Faust’  was  advanced 
a  few  important  steps;  and,  after  his  own  works,  there  is  perhaps 
nothing  that  we  owe  Schiller  greater  gratitude  for  than  his  incen¬ 
tive  energy  in  reviving  Goethe’s  old  interest  in  ‘  Faust.’  But  this 
unique  poem  was  not  concluded  till  long  after  this,  and  what  Goethe 
further  accomplished  at  this  time  consisted  of  trifles  like  the  ‘  Biir- 
gergeneral,’  or  unsatisfactory  productions,  wanting  in  inward  or 
outward  completeness,  like  the  ‘  Grosscophta  ’  and  the  ‘Natiirliche 
Tochter.’  The  five  act  comedy  entitled  the  ‘  Grosscophta’ (i.  e. 
Cagliostro),  was  acted  for  the  first  time  in  Weimar  on  The  4  Gross- 
the  17th  of  December,  1791.  It  was  intended  at  first  cophta,’ 

to  be  an  opera,  and  it  would  have  been  an  advantage  1791, 
to  the  piece  if  this  original  plan  had  been  adhered  to  ;  as  we  have 
it,  it  is  a  dramatisation  of  the  well-known  Diamond  Necklace  story, 
giving  a  horrible  picture  of  the  depravity  of  the  upper  classes.  The 
characters  are  superficial  sketches,  the  dialogue  and  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  plot  are  very  carelessly  handled,  and  there  is  an  utter 
want  of  interest  in  the  character  of  the  arch-swindler. 

The  ‘Natural  Daughter’  stands  on  a  far  higher  level  than  this 
transformed  Opera.  It  was  performed  at  Weimar  on  the  second  of 
April,  1803,  and,  like  the  ‘Grosscophta,’  it  bears  on  the  French  Revo¬ 
lution  and  the  state  of  things  which  led  to  it.  Till  the  present  day, 


N  2 


i8o 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


this  play  has  not  succeeded  in  winning  the  favour  of  the  German 
Tte  public,  though  it  is  one  of  Goethe’s  most  refined  and 
‘ Naturliche  original  works.  It  introduces  us  to  a  state  of  society  in 
Toehter,’  which  the  royal  prerogative  enjoys  an  exaggerated  ven¬ 
eration,  while  in  reality  it  is  powerless  and  exposed  to 
the  most  shameless  abuse  on  the  part  of  ambitious  intriguants. 
Eugenie,  the  heroine,  an  ardent  Royalist,  and  in  reality  an  off¬ 
shoot  of  the  royal  family,  though  not  yet  publicly  recognized  as 
such,  falls  a  victim  to  a  base  intrigue,  and  is  torn  away  from 
her  father’s  home.  In  the  place  of  concealment  to  which  she  has 
been  taken  she  gives  her  hand  to  a  man  of  the  bourgeois  class, 
and  thereby,  presumably,  renounces  the  rights  of  her  birth.  With 
Incomplete-  this  incident  the  fifth  act  of  the  drama  closes.  The 
ness  of  the  work,  as  we  now  have  it,  was  to  have  formed  the  first 
work‘  part  of  a  trilogy,  and  in  its  fragmentary  condition  it 
cannot  produce  its  full  effect,  notwithstanding  the  masterly  charac¬ 
terization,  the  powerful  situations,  and  the  grand,  though  occasion¬ 
ally  somewhat  vague  language.  The  sequel  was  to  have  shown 
how  the  weakness  of  the  government  and  the  ruler’s  incapacity  to 
remove  inherited  abuses  left  the  way  open  for  all  selfish  interests, 
and  how  a  prince,  who  believed  he  was  ruling,  was  really  himself 
but  a  tool  in  the  hands  of  designing  persons;  further,  Goethe 
meant  to  have  depicted  the  triumph  of  the  lower  elements  in  society, 
and  after  party  had  followed  on  party,  and  government  on  govern¬ 
ment,  Eugenie  would  have  re-appeared  on  the  scene  of  political 
action  with  her  loyalty  towards  the  king  and  his  family  unchanged, 
and  would  have  remained  by  their  side  as  a  ministering  angel  in 
their  hour  of  greatest  need;  finally,  according  to  Goethe’s  plan,  after 
much  bloodshed  in  the  conflict  of  classes  the  military  power  was  to 
have  at  length  triumphed.  This  play  was  suggested  by  a  French  Me- 
moire,  of  very  doubtful  historical  and  artistic  value,  but  which  in 
Eugenie’s  experiences  offered  a  convenient  thread  of  connection  for 
the  chief  events  of  the  French  Revolution.  France,  it  is  true,  is  never 
named  throughout,  but  the  French  Revolution  is  represented  as  a 
typical  phenomenon  and  traced  to  what  Goethe  considered  to  be 
its  causes.  He  lays  bare  with  an  unsparing  hand  the  sins  of  those 
in  power,  but  at  the  same  time  he  does  not  flatter  the  people,  and 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  and  Goethe. 


181 


he  suspects  selfish  motives  behind  their  enthusiastic  words.  It  is 
the  greatest  pity  that  we  only  possess  the  beginning  of  this  grandly- 
planned  poetic  work. 

But  though  Goethe’s  dramatic  activity  was  stagnating  at  the 
very  time  when  Schiller’s  skill  as  a  dramatist  was  developing 
itself  to  the  utmost,  it  was  not  till  now  that  he  developed  his 
highest  power  in  the  sphere  of  epic  poetry.  After  ‘Werther’ 
he  had  written  no  novel  or  tale,  and  the  period  of  his  life  im¬ 
mediately  preceding  his  Italian  journey  has  nothing  to  show 
in  the  way  of  epic  beyond  a  few  ballads,  such  as  the  <  Wilhelm 
‘  Fisher  ’  and  the  ‘  Erlking.’  But,  meanwhile,  ‘  Wil-  Meister’s 
helm  Meister’s  Lehrjahre  ’  was  quietly  taking  shape,  Lehrjahre.’ 
and  the  first  good  effect  of  Schiller’s  sympathy  was  to  persuade 
Goethe  to  complete  this  comprehensive  romance;  a  work  which 
contributed  more  than  any  other  to  spread  the  fame  of  its  author, 
and,  especially  in  Berlin,  to  establish  his  literary  authority  for  ever. 
While  the  readers  of  ‘  Werther’s  Sorrows  ’  had  been  made  to  con¬ 
template  the  world  through  the  eyes  of  a  romantic  youth,  in  ‘  Wil- 
helm  Meister,’  on  the  contrary,  the  world  was  represented  as  it  is, 
and  as  unprejudiced  men  are  wont  to  regard  it.  The  work  is 
divided  into  eight  books,  of  which  the  first  five  appear  to  have  been 
planned  under  the  influence  of  the  views  of  Goethe’s  Frankfort 
period.  Wilhelm  is  a  warm-hearted  hero,  like  Fernando  in  £  Stella/ 
He  has  a  susceptible  nature,  and  is  a  favourite  among  First  fiv0 
women,  but  his  will  is  weak  and  he  is  too  hasty  in  books, 
entering  into  binding  relations.  He  shows  a  decided  ‘Wilhelm’s 
striving  after  the  harmonious  development  of  his  mind,  character- 
taste,  and  even  personal  appearance,  and  he  has  most  exalted 
ideas  of  a  possible  reform  of  the  German  stage.  He  looks  more 
into  his  own  soul  than  into  the  outer  world,  and  is  constantly  pour¬ 
ing  out  his  views  and  feelings  to  others.  His  knowledge  is  derived 
more  from  the  poets  than  from  experience  or  observation,  and  in 
consequence  he  is  inclined  to  self-deception.  Sometimes,  however, 
there  comes  over  him  a  recognition  of  his  schoolboy-like  nature, 
and  in  Shakspeare  he  finds  a  leader  and  a  friend  who  at  least 
stimulates  him  to  get  to  know  the  world  around  him  better,  and 
to  use  this  knowledge  for  the  advantage  of  the  German  stage.  For 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


1 82 

Wilhelm  is  wavering  between  business  and  the  stage ;  his  father 
wishes  to  keep  him  to  the  former,  while  his  own  inclinations  impel 
him  to  the  latter.  Throughout  we  recognize  in  this  character  young 
Goethe  himself,  the  son  of  the  Frankfort  citizen,  the  Shakspearian 
enthusiast ;  only  that  Goethe’s  business  was  law,  while  Wilhelm, 
like  Goethe’s  friend,  Fritz  Jacobi,  is  a  merchant,  and  secondly, 
that  Goethe  benefited  the  stage  solely  as  a  poet,  not  as  an  actor, 
while  Wilhelm,  though  he  does  also  write  poetry,  feels  himself 
specially  attracted  by  the  theatrical  career.  He  is  constantly  associat¬ 
ing  with  actors  and  actresses,  such  as  Marianne,  a  character  rather 
resembling  Clarchen,  the  calculating  Melina  and  his  emotional 
wife,  the  misogynist  Laertes,  the  frivolous  but  altogether  charming 
Philine,  the  stage-manager  Serlo  and  his  passionate,  deeply  injured 
sister  Aurelia,  who  has  been  forsaken  by  an  aristocratic  lover. 
Delicious  and  animated  scenes  are  brought  before  us,  alternating 
with  serious  discussions  on  art,  little  intrigues,  exciting  events,  and 
tragic  situations.  In  the  fifth  book  Wilhelm's  father  dies,  and  then 
he  really  goes  on  the  stage ;  his  first  part  is  Hamlet,  in  which  he 
pleases  the  public,  and  thus  his  career  in  life  seems  decided. 

But  at  this  very  point  the  author  leads  us  into  another  world, 
Last  three  and  takes  up  a  different  stand-point.  Wilhelm’s  act- 
books.  ing,  we  are  told,  was  a  failure ;  we  are  assured  that  he 
had  no  talent  for  it,  and  an  aristocratic  circle,  with  which  he  has 
till  then  only  come  into  occasional  and  slight  contact,  now  takes 
possession  of  him.  In  the  first  five  books  the  aristocracy  does  not 
play  a  very  noble  part,  being  represented  by  a  Baron  who  dabbles 
in  the  drama,  a  Baroness  whose  coquetry  goes  beyond  all  limits, 
a  somewhat  crazy  Count  and  his  beautiful  but  not  scrupulously 
faithful  wife.  But  now  in  Lothario  we  are  introduced  to  the  noblest 
type  of  an  aristocrat  and  German  gentleman,  a  character  bearing 
an  indubitable  resemblance  to  Karl  August.  This  Lothario  is  sur¬ 
rounded  by  a  circle  of  devoted  friends  :  the  cold,  sensible  Jarno, 
whose  prototype  may  have  been  Merck  of  Darmstadt,  an  Abb£, 
who  was  perhaps  suggested  by  Herder,  Lothario’s  sister  Natalie,  a 
gentle,  sympathetic  soul,  pure  and  noble-hearted,  who  might  be 
compared  to  Frau  von  Stein,  and  the  practical  Theresa,  a  kindred 
nature  to  the  active  Lothario,  whom  she  afterwards  marries.  Wil- 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  and  Goethe. 


183 


Inserted 
‘  Bekennt- 
nisse  einer 
schonen 
Seele/ 


helm’s  position  with  regard  to  these  people  is  much  the  same  as 
that  of  Goethe  at  the  Court  of  Weimar.  A  life  of  action  now 
seems  to  him  the  only  kind  of  life  worth  living ;  he  considers  it  a 
privilege  to  serve  Lothario,  and  his  love-troubles  find  a  happy  end¬ 
ing  in  the  love  of  Natalie.  Caste  prejudices  do  not  appear  among 
these  excellent  people,  and  the  novel  finishes  with  several  mes¬ 
alliances.  The  male  members  of  this  aristocratic  circle  are  united 
in  a  secret  society  which  had  long  had  its  attention  directed  to  the 
hero,  and  which  at  length  receives  him  as  one  of  its  members  ; 
here  we  are  again  reminded  of  the  Order  of  Freemasons,  to  which 
the  Duke,  Herder,  and  Goethe  belonged. 

The  ‘  Confessions  of  a  beautiful  Soul/  inserted  at  the  end  of  the 
fifth  book,  are  really  a  biography  of  Fraulein  von 
Klettenberg,  that  Frankfort  friend  of  Goethe’s  who  con¬ 
verted  him  for  a  time  to  Moravian  Pietism,  and  whom 
he  now  represented  as  an  aunt  of  Lothario  and  Na¬ 
talie.  These  ‘  Confessions  ’  complete  the  picture 
of  morals  to  which  Goethe  introduces  us  in  this  book.  Wilhelm 
and  the  actors,  as  well  as  Lothario,  Jarno  and  their  associates  are 
children  of  the  world,  entirely  occupied  with  the  present  life,  finding 
full  satisfaction  in  their  aesthetic  calling  or  in  useful  activity,  and 
almost  all  equally  ready  to  take  the  pleasures  of  life  and  love  with¬ 
out  scruple  wherever  they  may  find  them.  Wilhelm,  it  is  true,  has 
higher  principles,  but  without  any  religious  basis.  The  aunt  on 
the  contrary,  and  her  niece  Natalie,  who  is  spiritually  akin  to  her, 
belong  to  quite  a  different  sphere ;  the  aunt  is  the  picture  of  a 
Moravian  Pietist,  while  Natalie  belongs  to  the  humane  family  of 
Iphigenia.  Two  tragic  figures  are  added  to  these,  characters 
wandering  in  a  twilight  of  mystery  over  the  earth —  Gf  Mignon 
Mignon  and  the  harper ;  they  are  daughter  and  father,  and  the 

unknown  to  each  other,  exiles  from  their  native  coun-  harPer- 

try,  and  united  to  Wilhelm  Meister  by  ties  of  love  and  gratitude. 
None  of  Goethe’s  creations  appeal  more  strongly  to  the  depths  of 
the  human  soul  than  these  two  characters,  with  their  touching 
songs.  Solemn  echoes  of  old  mysticism  seem  revived  in  these 
songs  full  of  earthly  misery  and  longing  for  heaven  ;  the  laments 
of  the  loving  but  unloved  maiden,  the  homeless,  friendless  child, 


184 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  xir. 


who  may  not  reveal  her  inmost  soul  because  her  lips  are  sealed  by 
a  vow,  alternate  with  the  tears  of  the  guilty,  God-forsaken,  lonely 
and  remorseful  old  man.  A  deep  gloom  rests  on  the  head  of  each, 
and  the  future  seems  to  have  no  dawn  of  brightness  for  them. 

Mignon  and  the  harper  are  creations  of  Goethe’s  earlier  and  ten¬ 
derer  period.  Knowledge  derived  from  observation  of  real  life, 
for  which  the  court  offered  such  rich  opportunity,  was  combined  in 
‘  Wilhelm  Meister’  with  material  accumulated  some  time  before,  and 
‘Wilhelm  the  free  morals  which  reigned  around  Goethe  at  Wei- 

Meister  mar  are  reflected  \n  the  book.  We  have  evidence  that 
begun  1777,  ,  .  1  •  •  r-  !  j  • 

finished  he  began  to  work  at  it  in  February,  1777,  and  it  was  not 

1796.  finished  till  almost  twenty  years  later ;  the  work  began 
to  appear  in  January,  1795,  and  was  completed  in  October,  1796. 
The  story  is  supposed  to  take  place  about  the  time  of  the  Bavarian 
War  of  Succession.  Lothario  has  fought  in  the  War  of  American 
Independence,  and  is  now  actively  occupied  in  improving  his  pea¬ 
santry.  His  liberal  reforms  seem  to  realise  all  Werther’s  demands; 
the  aristocracy  no  longer  oppress  and  scorn  the  aspiring  son  of  the 
people,  but  receive  him  into  their  society.  Among  the  various 
ranks  of  society  special  prominence  is  given  to  the  aristocracy  and 
the  trading  middle-classes  ;  the  former  appear  in  the  best  light, 
iphe  while  the  latter  are  almost  caricatured  in  the  person 

theatrical  of  Wilhelm’s  friend  and  brother-in-law.  But  the  chief 
interest,  interest  centres  round  the  actors,  who  appear  now  as 
vagabonds,  now  in  high  honour;  they  have  manifold  points  of 
contact  with  those  above  and  below  them  in  the  social  scale,  but 
they  form  a  society  by  themselves,  and  have  their  own  peculiar  laws 
and  customs.  The  theatrical  life,  and  everything  connected  with  it, 
is  unfolded  before  us  with  almost  systematic  completeness,  and  we 
are  all  the  more  astonished  when  we  find  this  supposed  theatrical 
romance  taking  quite  another  direction,  and  notice  at  the  same  time 
that  the  new  and  presumably  higher  region  into  which  the  hero 
has  entered  is  treated  with  much  less  care  than  the  early  part  of 
Want  of  the  work.  The  long  discussion  on  Hamlet,  and  the 
unity  in  the  space  and  interest  devoted  to  all  matters  connected 
work.  with  the  drama  and  the  stage  in  the  first  part  of  the 
book,  seem  out  of  place,  if  all  this  is  only  to  illustrate  a  false  ten- 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  arid  Goethe. 


185 


dency  of  the  hero’s,  and  if  we  are  not  even  to  perceive  the  effect 
on  his  future  life  of  the  experiences  which  he  had  gathered  among 
the  players.  Then,  too,  the  aims  and  objects  of  Wilhelm’s  new  life 
are  at  first  so  vague.  His  early  life  was  ruled  by  a  dominating 
propensity,  by  a  conscious  purpose ;  but  in  the  circle  of  Lothario 
he  becomes  the  tool  of  other  people,  and  we  have  no  idea  what  part 
he  will  play. 

Here  we  light  on  the  defect  of  the  work.  The  truth  is  that 
Goethe  hurried  the  conclusion  in  order  to  get  the  book  off  his 
hands.  Hence,  complete  unity  of  composition  is  wanting ;  motives 
are  let  drop,  inconsistencies  may  be  pointed  out,  and  the  style  be¬ 
comes  inferior  towards  the  close.  But  the  descriptive  power  shown 
in  the  whole  work,  and  especially  in  the  earlier  parts,  is  so  great, 
the  appeal  to  the  imagination  and  understanding  so  Excellences 
powerful,  the  style  so  animated  and  graphic,  the  of  style  and 
speeches  and  actions  so  well  calculated,  the  suspense  method, 
so  skilfully  excited,  protracted  or  diminished,  that  neither  the  slow 
development  of  events,  nor  the  theoretical  discussions,  nor  the 
many  purely  circumstantial  episodes  excite  the  reader’s  impatience, 
that  on  the  contrary  our  interest  remains  assured  bofh  to  the  hero 
and  to  the  circumstances  which  develop  themselves  around  him. 
Inanimate  nature,  which  plays  such  an  important  part  in 
‘Werther,’  here  quite  retires  into  the  background;  it  is  humanity 
alone  that  excites  the  interest  of  the  poet.  He  does  not  directly 
describe  the  long  and  varied  series  of  characters  which  he  passes 
before  our  eyes,  but  imparts  life  to  them  by  the  often  marvellously 
skilful  invention  of  characteristic  speeches  and  actions.  He  treats 
all  his  characters  with  sympathetic  toleration,  and,  like  Tolerant 
nature  herself,  produces  in  equal  perfection,  one  might  views, 
almost  say  with  equal  love,  bad  and  good,  mean  and  noble  char¬ 
acters.  He  was  not  the  first  to  employ  this  manner,  but  he  brought 
to  its  culmination  the  movement  which  was  started  in  protest  against 
Richardson’s  unnaturally  virtuous  heroes. 

Much  in  the  plan  of  ‘Wilhelm  Meister’  is  derived  from  Wieland’s 
1  Agathon.’  In  its  general  scheme,  as  a  romance  tracing  the  gradual 
education  and  development  ofjjie  hejo,  as  well  as  in  many  pecu¬ 
liarities  of  technique,  ‘Agathon’  was  its  prototype  ;  even  the  hero’s 


1 86 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XII, 


‘Wilhelm 
Meister  ’ 
and 

Wieland’s 
‘  Agathon.’ 


transition  from  extravagant  enthusiasm  to  common-sense  views  and 
practical  activity  was  a  feature  transferred  from  the 
older  work  to  the  newer  and  more  perfect  one.  Both 
these  novels  are  faithful  pictures  of  real  life;  both 
bring  before  us  erring  men,  lenient  in  their  views, 
and  needing  to  be  judged  leniently,  and  but  few  elect 
ones  who  have  attained  to  virtue  and  purity.  The  ideal  is  not 
embodied  in  any  one  striking  personality,  and  no  attempt  is  made  at 
directly  inculcating  moral  lessons ;  but  the  picture  of  a  circle  of 
talented  people,  open  to  all  higher  interests  and  exercising  a  peculiar 
charm  on  all  who  come  in  contact  with  them,  the  revelation  of  the 
inexhaustible  richness  of  human  nature,  and  the  varied  motives  in¬ 
fluencing  its  will  and  action, — all  this  exercises  not  only  an  aesthetic 
but  also  a  moral  influence  on  our  higher  nature. 

The  author  did  not  consider  this  work  as  terminated;  certain 
passages  point  to  a  sequel,  which  was  later  on  somewhat  poorly 
‘Unterhalt-  suPP^e^  in  ‘Wilhelm  Meister’s  Wanderjahre.’  During 
ungen  deut-  the  interim  between  these  two  works,  Goethe’s  activity 
seller  Ausge-  in  the  way  0f  prose-narrative  is  represented  by  the 
wanderten.  t  Conversations  0f  German  Emigrants  ’  which  appeared 
in  Schiller’s  ‘  Horen,’ consisting  of  a  few  tales  and  an  allegory  narrated 
by  a  company  of  emigrants,  who  have  retreated  before  the  French 
invasion  from  the  left  to  the  right  bank  of  the  Rhine.  While 
gaining  an  acquaintance  with  the  characters  and  fortunes  of  these 
people,  we  are  at  the  same  time  enabled  to  observe  the  disturbing 
and  deteriorating  influence  exercised  on  human  relations  and 
forms  of  social  intercourse  by  that  political  party-strife  which  the 
Revolution  had  transplanted  to  Germany.  Boccaccio  had  already 
employed  a  similar  frame-work,  with  a  public  calamity  in  the  back¬ 
ground,  to  hold  his  tales  together ;  and,  like  Boccaccio,  Goethe  has 
here  given  a  new  form  to  traditional  matter  as  well  as  to  experience 
and  fiction,  and  has  transfused  the  whole  with  the  charm  of  his  art. 
In  the  year  1800,  Goethe  published  ‘The  good  Wives/  a  little 
‘  Die  guten  masterpiece,  written  as  the  text  to  some  pictures  in  a 
Weiber.’  small  publication.  Here  again  we  find  dialogue  alter¬ 
nating  with  short  stories,  which  can  hardly  be  called  tales,  but  only 
germs  for  tales.  Thus  Goethe  tried  his  hand  at  all  kinds  of  prose 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  and  Goethe. 


1 87 


narrative,  from  the  novel  to  the  tale  and  to  a  dialogue  furnishing 
suggestions  for  a  tale;  and  at  the  same  time,  as  we  shall  see,  he 
exhausted  all  the  forms  of  narrative  poetry  from  the  epic  to  the  ballad 
with  its  cognate  half-dramatic  or  half-lyric  forms. 

With  the  Roman  elegies  should  be  classed  *  Alexis  and  Dora/ 

also  written  in  elegiac  metre,  and  the  dialogue  entitled 

‘The  new  Pausias  and  his  flower-girl/  both  artistic  ,  P°ems- 

masterpieces  of  inexhaustible  beauty.  In  the  first  we  Dora,’  and 

have  the  story  of  a  bond  of  love  entered  into  at  the  *  Der  neus 

moment  of  separation,  in  the  same  way  as  Herder  Pau!!fs  und 
1  7  J  sein  Blumen- 

had  found  his  bride ;  one  short,  hurried  moment,  big  madchen.’ 

with  fateful  issues,  a  sudden  expansion  of  the  heart, 

mute  wooing  and  consent,  a  vow  of  eternal  constancy  while  the 

companions  of  the  departing  lover  are  impatiently  calling  him  to 

the  ship,  and  then  the  picture  of  the  past,  present,  and  future,  wishes, 

hopes,  and  doubts  passing  through  the  mind  of  the  voyager.  The 

second  poem  shows  us  a  lover  sitting  at  the  feet  of  his  beloved  one; 

she  is  twining  a  wreath  and  he  is  handing  her  the  flowers,  and  their 

conversation  reveals  to  us,  in  dramatic  and  passionate  language,  the 

circumstances  of  their  first  acquaintance  and  ihe  subsequent  short 

history  of  their  love.  Both  these  poems  are  clothed  in  classical 

garb,  but  Goethe  had  in  his  mind  at  the  same  time  a  story  of 

national  interest,  namelv,  ‘  Hermann  und  Dorothea/  .  __ 

'  — - - -  Hermann 

He  began  to  work  at  it  immediately  after  the  comple-  und 
tion  of  ‘  Wilhelm  Meister’s  Lehrjahre/  in  the  Sep-  Dorothea/ 

1  7Q7 

tember  of  1796,  and  by  June,  1797,  he  had  already 
completed  it ;  it  is  his  highest  achievement  in  epic  poetry,  the  most 
perfect  product  of  his  cultured  realism,  the  noblest  fruit  of  that  style 
which  he  had  acquired  during  his  sojourn  in  Italy.  He  had  prac¬ 
tised  his  hand  in  hexameters  by  transposing  the  old  Reinecke 
Low-German  ‘  Reinecke  Fuchs  ’  into  this  metre,  in  Fuchs,  1793. 
1793,  and  he  now  employed  the  same  metre  as  Voss  had  used  in 
his  ‘  Luise  *  and  other  idylls,  in  relating  a  story  of  Goethe  and 
German  middle-class  life.  But  Voss  kept  his  readers  Voss 
confined  within  a  circle  of  narrow  and  petty  interests,  c°mPared> 
and  entertained  them  with  occurrences  of  trivial  import  and  con¬ 
versations  of  no  consequence ;  a  mere  dry  reproduction  of  every- 


1 88 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


day  life  without  any  idealizing  touch;  at  the  same  time  he  never 
succeeded  in  presenting  a  clear  picture  to  his  readers,  and  was  thus 
the  exact  opposite  of  Homer.  Goethe,  on  the  contrary,  taught  the 
Germans  to  see  their  own  domestic  life  with  the  eyes  of  Homer ; 
he  made  his  characters  express  their  deepest  experience,  and  gave 
them  a  wide  moral,  social,  and  political  background ;  he  made  all 
the  incidental  matter  bear  some  relation  to  the  leading  idea ;  in 
fact  he  followed  out  the  strict  epic  method,  which  Lessing  had 
deduced  from  Homer. 

In  ‘  Werther,’  Goethe  had  already  furnished  a  poetically  idealized 

Goethe’s  picture  of  middle-class  family  life,  but  with  much  senti- 
treatment  of  mental  adornment.  In  ‘Faust’  and  ‘Egmont’  he  drew 
middle-class  a  succession  of  appreciative  pictures  of  small  civic  life, 
life*  and  not  very  different  from  these  is  the  description  of 
the  interior  of  a  knightly  castle  in  ‘  Gotz.’  In  his  operetta,  ‘  Jery 
und  Bately,’  which  in  Scribe’s  version  and  with  Adam’s  music  still 
nowadays  finds  favour  on  the  French  and  German  stage,  he  re¬ 
placed  the  conventional  operetta  rustics  of  the  school  of  Weisse, 
by  real  Swiss  peasants,  such  as  he  had  become  acquainted  with 
on  his  Swiss  journey  in  1779.  In  ‘Wilhelm  Meister,’  it  is  true,  he 
made  the  middle  classes  contrast  unfavourably  with  the  aristocracy ; 
but  immediately  after  he  had  concluded  this  novel,  he  produced 
in  •  Hermann  and  Dorothea  ’  a  truthful  and  beautiful  picture  of  the 
people  and  family  events  in  a  small  German  town.  The  great 
movements  in  the  outside  world,  which  in  ‘Wilhelm  Meister’  only 
incidentally  exercise  their  influence  on  the  narrative,  appear  in 
‘  Hermann  and  Dorothea’  as  an  essential  element  in  the  story,  and 
the  fortunes  of  the  characters  introduced  are  made  dependent  on 
them. 

In  the  year  1731,  the  Archbishop  of  Salzburg,  Graf  Firmian, 
Basis  of  fact  exPe^e^  some  few  hundred  Protestants  from  his 
in  'Hermann  territory,  and  the  fugitives  passed  through  South 
und  Doro-  Germany ;  there  was  a  story  that  a  maiden  of  the 

tll6df  * 

company  found  favour  in  the  eyes  of  a  rich  burgher’s 
son,  who  had  long  been  in  vain  pressed  to  marry,  but  who  now,  with 
sudden  resolution,  after  having  with  some  difficulty  won  the  approval 
of  his  father,  his  father’s  friends  and  the  village  clergyman,  wooed 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  and  Goethe. 


189 


the  maiden  and  brought  her  happily  home.  Goethe  took  up  this 
story  and  transformed  the  burgher’s  son  into  his  Hermann,  while 
the  fugitive  Salzburg  maiden  became  his  Dorothea.  Besides  the 
father,  he  introduced  Hermann’s  mother ;  he  kept  the  character  of 
the  clergyman  and  made  an  apothecary  represent  the  friends.  But 
he  transferred  the  incident  itself  to  present  times,  and  in  place 
of  the  homeless  Protestants  he  introduced  German  emigrants  from 
the  left  bank  of  the  Rhine,  who  had  been  driven  from  their  homes 
by  the  plundering  French  soldiers  and  the  numerous  troubles  of 
war.  He  changed  the  religious  into  a  political  hostility,  and  viewed 
the  disturbing  events  of  the  time  from  a  pre-eminently  national 
stand-point. 

Both  Goethe  and  his  princely  master  were  hostile  to  the  French 
Revolution,  which  was  everywhere  asserting  its  power, 

GrOBtllO  S 

and  troubling  men’s  minds  in  Germany  as  elsewhere.  attitude 
To  uphold  the  national  literature  in  despite  of  revolu-  towards  the 


French 

Revolution. 


tionary  influences,  and  to  retain  the  public  sympathy 
for  it,  was  a  matter  of  vital  interest  for  Goethe,  Schiller, 
and  many  like-minded  friends.  The  publication  of  the  ‘  Horen,’  as 
we  have  seen,  was  meant  to  serve  this  purpose.  But  the  gigantic 
phenomenon  of  the  Revolution  also  forced  itself  on  Goethe’s  mind  in 
the  light  of  poetic  material  for  his  hand  to  shape.  In  the ‘Venetian 
epigrams’  of  1790,  he  gave  bold  utterance  to  his  views,  addressing 
both  upper  and  lower  classes  in  terse,  plain-spoken  language.  In 
the  ‘Conversations  of  Emigrants,’  the  new  opinions  afloat  form  the 
central  interest  of  the  work.  *  Reinecke  Fuchs  'is  full  of  allusions  to 
contemporary  events,  and  Goethe  meant  to  draw  a  picture  of  society 
disorganized  in  this  profane  Bible,  this  low- toned  narrative  of  the 
triumph  of  impudence  amid  the  strife  of  selfish  interests.  Fie  also 
planned  a  political  novel  after  the  style  of  Rabelais.  Several  of  his 
dramas  directly  treat  of  the  French  Revolution;  such  are  the  ‘  Gross- 
cophta,’  the  ‘  Biirgergeneral,’  the  unfinished  play  ‘  Die  Aufgeregten,’ 
and  later  on,  ‘Die  natiirliche  Tochter.’  But  all  these  attempts 
gained  but  slight  popularity,  while  the  patriotic  spirit  of  his  ‘  Her¬ 
mann  and  Dorothea  ’  kindled  enthusiasm  in  all  patriotic  hearts. 

^Hermann,  despairing  of  winning  the  girl  he  loves,  turns  his 
thoughts  to  the  distress  of  his  Fatherland,  and  thinks  of  entering 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


190 


military  service,  to  defend  his  native  soil  against  the  foreigner. 

And  when  he  has  won  Dorothea,  in  exchanging  rings 
Patriotism  with  perj  pe  utters  a  solemn  vow  to  live  after  the 

temporary  examP^e  of  those  nations  who  fought  for  God  and  law, 
interest  in  for  parents,  wives,  and  children,  and  offered  a  firm 
‘Hermann  anq  united  resistance  lo  the  enemy. 

Dorothea’  Though  Goethe  thus  laid  the  scene  of  his  poem 

in  the  immediate  past — for  the  time  of  the  story  is 
supposed  to  be  about  August  1796 — though  he  carefully  interwove  in 
the  narrative  the  passing  peculiarities  of  the  age  in  manners  and 
taste,  though  he  introduced  allusions  to  new  fashions  in  dress, 
house-decoration,  and  horticulture,  to  the  rise  of  prices,  to  Mozart’s 
‘  Zauberflote,’  and  other  similar  contemporary  interests,  yet  in 
this  work  too,  his  main  endeavour  was  to  depict  permanent  con¬ 
ditions  of  human  existence,  and  to  contrast  these  conditions  with  the 
disquieting  vicissitudes  in  public  and  private  affairs.  While  the 
characters  in  ‘  Wilhelm  Meister  ’  are  still  for  the  most  part,  as  in 
‘  Werther/  so  individualised  as  to  produce  the  impression  of  por¬ 
traits,  and  only  a  few  are  made  ideal  figures,  in  ‘  Hermann  and 
Dorothea,’  on  the  contrary,  Goethe  makes  use  of  the  typical  method 
throughout,  and  thereby  produces  his  best  effects.  The  story  was 

peculiarly  adapted  for  this  treatment ;  from  the  first,  the 
Contrast  1  .  , 

between  strong  and  important  contrast  is  forced  upon  us  between 

fixed  and  settled  and  unsettled  or  wandering  life,  the  one  being 

wa^ering  represented  by  the  established  existence  of  a  small  town, 

the  other  by  the  homeless  condition  of  the  fugitives. 
All  the  misery  of  an  uprooted  existence  is  represented  in  Dorothea; 
she  is  poor,  an  orphan,  with  no  brother  or  sister,  and  her  lover  has 
Character  of  fallen  under  the  guillotine  in  Paris.  But  her  isolation 
Dorothea,  makes  her  self-reliant,  and  the  distress  of  her  neigh¬ 
bours  calls  forth  all  the  loving-kindness  of  her  heart.  She  becomes 
an  Amazon  in  a  moment  of  danger,  and  she  gives  thoughtful 
succour  to  the  sick  and  the  weak. 

In  contrast  to  Dorothea,  Hermann  represents  settled  conditions 
of  life  ;  he  has  all  that  Dorothea  lacks,  wealth,  parents,  and  a  home. 
Around  him  he  sees  developed  the  regular  relations  of  life :  the 
intimacy  of  married  couples,  their  care  for  their  children,  inter- 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  and  Goethe . 


191 

course  with  neighbours  and  with  the  kind  counsellor,  the  clergy¬ 
man.  The  people  of  the  little  town,  so  far  as  we  be-  other 
come  acquainted  with  them  personally  or  by  report,  characters  in 
seem  to  be  divided  into  two  groups — a  progressive  party  tlie  poem‘ 
and  a  conservative  party.  Hermann’s  father,  landlord  of  the  Golden 
Lion,  and  the  apothecary  are  votaries  of  fashion  and  think  much  ot 
the  good  things  of  this  life.  The  apothecary  contemplates  the  great 
events  of  the  time  as  a  selfish  old  bachelor,  and  rejoices  in  his  iso¬ 
lation.  The  landlord  of  the  Golden  Lion,  too,  is  selfish,  hates 
all  care  and  trouble  and  takes  life  easily ;  he  loves  show,  aims  at 
rising  higher  in  the  social  scale,  wishes  his  son  to  be  greater  than 
he  has  been,  and,  as  a  first  step  towards  this,  to  find  a  rich  bride. 
He  and  the  apothecary  gaze  in  admiration  at  the  greatest  trades¬ 
man  in  the  place,  who  always  has  the  latest  thing  in  fashion  at  his 
command,  and  they  endeavour  as  far  as  possible  to  imitate  him.  In 
contrast  to  these  three,  the  inn-keeper,  the  apothecary,  and  the  big 
tradesman  who  does  not  personally  appear  on  the  scene,  we  have 
as  a  pendant  the  clergyman,  the  mother,  and  Hermann.  Hermann 
gives  his  father  but  little  satisfaction,  for  he  does  not  wish  to  rise 
above  his  station.  He  has  little  culture  or  social  talent  and  does 
not  dress  by  the  fashion ;  but  he  is  strong  and  loves  work  which 
gives  vigour  to  his  body.  He  understands  horses  and  agriculture ; 
he  hates  wrong  and  protects  the  weak,  and  is  a  thoroughly  good, 
strong,  simple  nature,  though  somewhat  distrustful  of  himself,  as  is 
seen  in  his  wooing.  He  is  filled  with  patriotic  feeling,  with  the 
instinct  of  defence  against  foreigners,  but  at  home  he  wishes  for 
nothing  more  than  to  fill  well  the  sphere  allotted  to  him.  On  his 
side  stand  the  mother  and  the  clergyman  ;  the  latter  an  educated 
man,  of  wide,  practical  views,  who  rules  his  flock  by  judicious  dis¬ 
cernment;  the  former  a  simple  woman,  who  with  wise  persistence 
waits  for  the  right  season,  and  skilfully  attains  her  object.  Both 
recognise  Hermann’s  true  worth  while  the  father  depreciates  him, 
and  both  countenance  his  love  for  Dorothea. 

This  love,  as  it  appears  in  him  and  in  the  girl,  is  the  primitive 
phenomenon  of  instinctive  mutual  liking,  wherein  there  lies  at  the 
same  time  a  mysterious,  unfathomable  power,  a  kind  of  fate.  Rapid 
decision  is  necessary  here  as  in  ‘Alexis/  for  the  opportunity 


192 


Weimar. 


[ch.  XII. 


will  pass,  and  if  the  girl  is  not  secured  now,  her  lover  will  prob- 
Love  of  lose  sight  of  her  in  the  troublous  times. 

Hermann  Notwithstanding  the  haste  with  which  Hermann  forms 
and  and  carries  out  his  resolution,  no  doubt  arises  in  our 
minds  as  to  whether  the  two  will  suit  each  other,  so  far 
has  the  poet  permitted  us  to  look  into  their  souls.  We  feel  that  no 
lasting  opposition  can  arise  between  these  two  strongly  marked 
characters ;  she  knows  how  to  serve,  and  he  will  not  be  stern  in 
commanding;  she  will  respect,  and  he  will  worship.  Both  have 
already  shown  themselves  persistent  in  the  pursuit  of  good,  and 
trustworthy  in  their  own  peculiar  sphere  of  life,  she  in  the  troubles 
of  war,  he  in  a  life  of  comfort  and  peace.  But  Goethe  preserves 
the  typical  contrast  to  the  last,  and  keeps  the  deepest  and  most 
significant  words  for  the  end.  Dorothea  has  gained  a  firm  footing 
in  a  disturbed  world,  but  her  past  experience  makes  her  distrustful 
of  her  happiness  even  when  it  seems  so  certain.  As  she  says,  she 
is  like  a  sailor  who,  having  landed  safe  at  last,  still  seems  to  feel 
the  firm  ground  rocking  beneath  his  feet.  Hermann,  on  the  other 
hand,  from  his  experience  draws  confidence  in  the  permanent  and 
unchanging  conditions  of  life.  ‘  All  the  firmer.  Dorothea,’  he  says, 
‘  let  our  alliance  be  in  the  general  convulsion.  Our  love  shall  keep 
strong  and  last;  we  will  hold  fast  to  each  other  and  to  our  fair 
possessions.’ 

The  typical  contrast,  w’hich  is  the  basis  of  the  whole  poem,  is 
Condem-  further  brought  out  in  the  reference  at  the  close  to 
nation  of  the  Dorothea’s  first  lover,  a  man  of  weak  character  who 
Revolution.  jja(j  been  swallowed  up  in  the  chaos  of  the  French 
Revolution.  In  striking  contrast  to  the  enthusiasm  which  led  him 
to  Paris,  we  have  Hermann’s  sober  reflection  :  ‘  The  man  who  in 
a  tottering  age  is  unsteady  in  character,  only  increases  the  evil  and 
spreads  it  further  and  further ;  but  the  man  of  firm  principles  shapes 
the  world  to  his  will.  It  is  not  for  the  Germans  to  carry  on  the 
terrible  revolution,  and  to  waver  hither  and  thither.’ 

Goethe  preserves  a  strictly  impartial  attitude  towards  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  things  which  he  brings  before  us.  He  throws  no  strong 
shadow’s  on  any  of  his  characters ;  but  he  portrays  with  unrivalled 
humour  the  novelty-loving  Philistines  of  the  little  town,  the  irascible 


Schiller  and  Goethe. 


Ch.  XII.] 


*93 


landlord  and  the  talkative  apothecary,  and  his  sympathy  is  quite 
unmistakably  on  the  side  of  the  permanent  and  con-  objective 
servative  forces,  by  means  of  which  a  new  home  and  character 
a  new  happiness  are  founded  in  the  midst  of  the  out-  of  the 
ward  confusion.  Though  sometimes  the  initiated  reader  poem* 
may  recognise  the  author  himself  behind  his  characters,  yet  the 
treatment  is  perfectly  objective  throughout,  and  on  the  whole  we 
may  say  that  none  of  his  dramatis  personae  are  made  to  utter  any¬ 
thing  which  is  not  in  harmony  with  their  character  and  their  level 
of  culture. 

In  the  story  of  the  Salzburg  emigrants,  as  Goethe  received  it,  it 
turns  out  at  the  last  that  Dorothea,  who  is  supposed  to  be  so  poor, 
has  really  a  considerable  portion  to  offer  with  herself ;  this  seemed 
to  Goeihe  an  ignoble  element  in  the  story,  and  he  consequently 
omitted  it  in  his  poem  ;  but  otherwise  he  had  little  to  alter,  only 
making  the  subject  more  connected  and  complete.  Excellences 
He  has  succeeded  in  arranging  the  events  so  well,  of  style  and 
that  he  raises  us,  as  the  poem  goes  on,  from  a  metllod- 
somewhat  prosaic  level  to  the  highest  regions  of  poetry.  He 
runs  through  almost  the  whole  scale  of  human  feelings;  even 
the  subject  of  death  is  discussed  among  the  friends  of  the  land¬ 
lord,  who  are  anxiously  awaiting  the  arrival  of  Hermann  with  his 
bride. 

The  poem  is  divided  into  nine  cantos  which,  like  the  books  of 
Herodotus’  history,  bear  the  names  of  the  nine  Muses.  The  tone 
of  each  canto  is  in  appropriate  relation  to  the  name  which  it  bears, 
and  thus  all  the  various  branches  of  poetry  are  brought  before  us. 
The  easy  breadth  of  the  epic  is  here  combined  with  dramatic 
concentration.  Unity  of  time  is  adhered  to,  the  whole  story  taking 
place  in  the  course  of  an  afternoon.  The  poet  seldom  comes  for¬ 
ward  with  his  own  comments,  but  like  a  skilful  dramatist  acquaints 
us  with  the  nature  of  the  chief  actors  through  the  medium  of  the 
conversation  of  secondary  characters.  Hermann  is  introduced  as  a 
speaker  in  the  second  canto,  Dorothea  not  till  the  seventh  ;  but 
Goethe  manages  that  we  should  know  the  whole  time  what  all  the 
characters  have  been  doing.  The  somewhat  narrow  landscape  is 
incidentally  described,  so  that,  notwithstanding  frequent  change  of 


VOL.  II. 


o 


194 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


scene,  a  clear  and  connected  picture  is  presented  to  our  eyes.  The 
whole  story  is  graphic  in  the  highest  degree,  yet  quiet  in  tone  through¬ 
out.  Goethe  has  expressly  abstained  from  exciting  any  artificial 
suspense ;  when  Hermann  is  filled  with  anxious  concern  on  seeing 
the  ring  on  Dorothea’s  finger,  the  reader,  on  the  other  hand,  has  long 
ago  been  fully  informed  as  to  its  history.  The  style  and  manner  are 
of  the  school  of  Homer,  but  never  betrav  mere  slavish  imitation. 
The  simple  subject  would  not  bear  the  splendour  of  the  Homeric 
diction ;  but  notwithstanding  its  simplicity  and  truth,  an  inexhaust¬ 
ible  charm  breathes  through  the  whole  poem.  Instead  of  outward 
splendour,  there  is  a  depth  of  spiritual  insight,  which  appeals  to 
simple  hearts  with  irresistible  power. 

The  way  in  which  Hermann  is  misjudged  by  his  father,  while 
his  mother  thoroughly  understands  him,  seems  a  reminiscence  of 
Reflections  Goethe’s  own  youth.  Hermann’s  mother  bears  many 
of  Goethe’s  points  of  resemblance  to  the  active  Elisabeth  von 
own  life  in  Berlichingen,  and  Goethe’s  mother  may  have  supplied 
the  poem.  model  for  both.  German  family  life  had  a  special 
attraction  for  Goethe  as  a  subject  for  poetic  treatment,  since  he 
himself  had  become  the  possessor  of  home,  and  wife,  and  child. 
This  immortal  poem  was  a  fruit  of  that  domestic  happiness  which 
he  now  enjoyed.  He  himself  has  pointed  out  this  connection  in 
the  beautiful  elegy  entitled  ‘  Hermann  und  Dorothea,’  where  he 
asks  of  the  muse,  not  laurels,  but  roses  for  the  domestic  wreath, 
and  calls  on  his  friends  to  listen  to  his  completed  work,  inviting 
them  to  the  domestic  hearth,  where  the  wife  stirs  the  fire,  while 
the  boy,  in  busy  play,  throws  twigs  upon  the  flames. 

The  spirit  of  the  modern  classical  period  of  German  literature, 
the  wished  for  and  accomplished  harmony  with  Greek  antiquity, 
is  clearly  perceptible  throughout  this  epic  of  Goethe’s.  The 
Homeric  tone  is  immortally  linked  with  the  best  elements  of 
German  middle  class  life.  But  Goethe  did  not  stop  at  this  homely 
subject.  Once  master  of  the  Homeric  style,  he  longed  to  apply  it 
Goethe's  to  Homer’s  own  world ;  he  commenced  an  ‘  Achil- 
‘  Achiiieis.’  ieiS;’  beginning  where  the  Iliad  ends,  and  intended 
to  relate  the  death  of  Achilles.  He  only  wrote  the  beginning 
of  it,  and  even  after  about  five  hundred  lines  we  feel  somewhat 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  and  Goethe. 


195 


wearied ;  but  those  five  hundred  lines  rank  among  the  best  work 
that  he  ever  produced.  The  poem  opens  with  a  splendid  scene, — 
Achilles  gazing  over  Troy,  where  Hector’s  funeral  pile  is  slowly 
burning  down,  watching  it  through  the  night  hours,  and  rising 
in  the  morning  with  his  heart  filled  with  unmitigated  hatred  of 
the  dead.  After  this,  the  Greek  gods  and  goddesses  are  brought 
before  us  in  an  Olympian  assembly.  Goethe  could  here  indulge 
in  the  miraculous  elements  which  he  had  had  to  banish  from  his 
bourgeois  epic ;  those  mythological  types  of  the  ancient  world, 
which  Italy  had  brought  so  near  to  him,  and  which  he  had  sought 
to  interpret  as  an  archaeologist,  could  here  be  turned  to  poetic 
account.  He  did  not,  however,  simply  adopt  the  gods  of  Homer, 
but  developed  them,  and  here  again  surpassed  the  Greeks  in  soul, 
in  moral  depth,  in  the  inner  life.  His  Zeus  is  a  cheerful,  comfort¬ 
ing  Divinity ;  Ares  is  the  thorough  type  of  the  stern  soldier,  and 
the  presentment  of  Hephaestos,  who  finds  pleasure  only  in  labour, 
but  whose  works  have  to  receive  their  charm  from  the  Graces,  is 
equally  characteristic.  Thetis  is  the  ideal  mother,  Venus  gentle 
and  feminine,  Here  hard  and  ungracious,  and  only  in  her  jealousy 
a  true  woman.  The  ideal  Pallas  Athene,  in  her  friendship  with 
Achilles,  is  a  picture  of  those  women  who  benefit  men  of  genius 
by  their  sympathetic  friendship  and  their  enthusiastic  appreciation. 

Goethe’s  genius  was  still,  as  in  his  youth,  flexible  enough  to  be 
occupied  at  one  and  the  same  time  with  the  clear  cut  figures  of 
Greek  mythology,  and  with  the  shadowy  beings  of  Northern  mists 
and  gloom.  As  he  had  given  poetic  embodiment  to  the  cheerful 
types  of  German  middle  class  life,  so  now  in  his  ballads  he  turned 
to  artistic  account  the  creations  of  popular  superstition.  In  the 
year  1797  he  and  Schiller  emulated  each  other  in  Goethe’s 
ballad-writing,  and  Goethe  developed  a  wonderful  ballads, 

variety  in  this  province  of  poetry.  In  most  of  his  ballads  human 
beings  are  brought  into  contact  with  supernatural  powers,  and  are 
destroyed  or  exalted,  put  to  shame  or  warned.  Among  his  best 
productions  of  this  kind  we  may  mention,  ‘  Der  Erlkonig,'  ‘  Der 
Fischer,’  ‘Der  Todtentanz,’  ‘Der  Zauberlehrling,’  ‘  Hochzeitlied,’ 
‘  Der  Schatzgraber,’  ‘  Die  Braut  von  Korinth,’  ‘  Der  Gott  und  die 
Bajadere.’  Sometimes  the  effect  is  produced  by  the  mere  fact  of 


o  2 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


196 

the  intervention  of  miraculous  powers  in  human  destinies ;  some¬ 
times  such  intervention  bears  a  deeper,  symbolical  meaning,  and 
the  events  narrated  are  of  a  typical  character.  Thus  the  ‘  Bride 
of  Corinth  ’  symbolises  the  contrast  between  paganism  and  Chris¬ 
tianity.  Some  of  Goethe’s  ballads  belong  to  a  purely  human 
sphere ;  they  are  serious  or  humorous,  not  always  real  narratives, 
but  sometimes  only  significant  scenes  (cf.  ‘Das  Veilchen’  and 
‘Das  Blumlein  Wunderschon ’).  The  ballads  of  the  Millers 
daughter,  written  in  part  in  dialogue,  form  a  complete  cycle  by 
themselves.  In  the  ‘  First  Walpurgis-Night,’  choruses  and  single 
characters  speak  alternately,  Christian  watchmen  are  alarmed  by 
German  heathens,  and  the  effect  is  almost  that  of  a  scene  in  an 
opera.  On  the  other  hand,  some  poems  which  Goethe  calls 
ballads  are  only  soliloquies  uttered  by  particular  characters  in 
definite  situations,  such  as  ‘  Mignon,’  or  the  ‘  Rattenfanger  ’ 
(The  pied  Piper). 

Goethe’s  lyric  poetry  now  also  took  a  new  departure.  Till  then 
the  subjects  for  his  songs  had  always  suggested  themselves  spon- 
His  lyric  taneously,  being  furnished  by  outside  events,  or  from 
poetry.  his  cwn  inner  life ;  they  resulted  from  a  strong  im¬ 
pulse  to  disburden  his  ;  oul  in  poetry.  Now,  however,  he  began  also 
in  his  lyric  poetry  consciously  to  look  out  for  subjects,  and  to 
borrow  ideas  from  popular  or  other  tradition,  transforming  them 
and  improving  them,  and  thus  gaining  the  same  conscious  mastery 
over  lyric  poetry  as  he  had  gained  over  other  forms  of  writing. 

A  large  collection  of  lyrics  written  under  this  influence  appeared 
under  the  title  of  ‘  Social  Songs  ’  in  a  pocket-calendar  for  the 
year  1804,  which  he  published  in  conjunction  with 

DGr  \jgsG" 

ligkeit  gewid-  Wieland.  This  collection  is  full  of  products  of  the 
mete  Lieder,’  maturest  art,  but  there  is  less  variety  of  style  and 
1804'  imagination,  less  of  that  tone  of  direct,  self-expe¬ 
rienced  truth  which  affects  the  reader  so  powerfully  in  the  earlier 
poems.  These  lyrics  are  in  part  choruses,  in  part  songs  put  into 
the  mouth  of  fictitious  characters ;  all  kinds  of  situations  are  de¬ 
scribed  at  length,  under  the  most  various  disguises,  but  amuse¬ 
ment  and  mere  fancy  always  preponderate.  Goethe  now  no 
longer  chiefly  embodied  his  own  joys  and  sorrows  in  his  lyrics; 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller  and  Goethe. 


197 


in  them,  too,  as  in  ‘  Herman  and  Dorothea,’  he  has  become  more 
objective,  and  practises  that  artistic  self-forgetfulness  for  which 
he  had  laid  the  foundation  during  his  sojourn  in  Italy.  And  here 
again  he  employs  his  typical  method,  developing  a  poetic  idea  in 
all  directions,  and  seeking  to  discover  the  permanent  in  the  tran¬ 
sitory,  the  eternal  in  the  terrestrial.  ‘Die  gliicklichen  Gatten,’  a 
picture  of  an  elderly  couple,  looking  back  with  unaltered  affection 
and  sentiment  on  the  beginning  of  their  married  life,  and  proudly 
and  joyfully  reviewing  in  their  mind  their  grown-up  children, 
reminds  us  of  ‘  Hermann  and  Dorothea;’  and  the  poem  ‘Wandrer 
und  Pachterin/  in  which  the  daughter  of  a  banished  ruling  house 
finds  the  happiness  of  love  in  rustic  seclusion,  recalls  to  us  the 
leading  idea  of  ‘  Die  natiirliche  Tochter.’  In  both  these  poems 
the  warlike  and  revolutionary  convulsions  of  the  time  form  the 
background  of  the  picture,  contrasting  with  the  firmly-established 
family  relations  in  the  one  poem,  and  with  the  new  bond  springing 
from  old  ties  of  friendship  in  the  other. 

An  art  which  seeks  for  permanent  types  will  easily  tend  towards 
symbolism,  and  will  naturally  be  inclined  to  the  allegorical  form, 
which  represents  typical  contrasts  in  the  most  concise  and  graphic 
manner  to  the  understanding  and  the  imagination.  The  ‘  happy 
couple/  whom  we  have  noticed  above,  appear  again  as  Father 
Marten  and  Mother  Martha,  in  the  prologue  entitled  proiogue 
‘Was  wir  bringen/  which  appeared  in  1802.  The  ‘  Was  wir 
contrast  between  conservatism  and  progress,  which  we  bringen, 
noticed  in  ‘  Hermann  and  Dorothea,’  is  renewed  in 
this  couple;  Martha  clings  to  the  old,  while  Marten  is  all  for 
novelty.  But  these  two  characters  are  also  meant  to  remind  us  of 
Philemon  and  Baucis,  and  it  further  becomes  apparent  that  in 
conjunction  with  other  allegorical  figures,  intended  for  Naturalism, 
the  Opera  and  Tragedy,  they  here  represent  the  Farce  and  the 
middle  class  Drama.  The  contrast  between  the  old  times  and 
the  new,  between  age  and  youth,  is  represented  once  more  in 
allegorical  figures  in  the  play  entitled  ‘  Palaophron  « paia0phron 
and  Neoterpe/  written  in  the  autumn  of  1800,  in  *  und 
celebration  of  the  birthday  of  the  Dowager  Duchess  WeotcrPe- 
Anna  Amalia,  and  also  of  the  dawn  of  the  new  century.  Palao- 


198 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XII. 


at  the 
beginning 
of  the 
century. 


phron,  the  old  man,  sends  away  his  comrades  Griesgram 
(Grumbler),  and  Haberecht  (Arguer);  Neoterpe,  the  young  girl, 
also  dismisses  her  companions  Gerngross  (Brag),  and  Naseweis 
(Impudence) ;  then  age  and  youth,  who  were  previously  at  feud, 
are  reconciled.  Here,  too,  the  poet  preserves  his  objective  attitude, 
and  shows  his  justice  and  impartiality. 

The  nineteenth  century  which  Goethe  thus  greeted  made  gaps 
in  the  ranks  of  the  German  poets,  and  caused  Goethe  himself 
some  deep  griefs.  In  February  1803,  Gleim  died;  in 
Deaths  March,  Klopstock ;  in  December,  Herder.  ‘  The 
man^riters  Prussian  Grenadier  ’  and  the  poet  of  the  Messiah  had 
outlived  their  powers,  and  their  death  was  no  sensible 
loss;  the  former  was  eighty-four,  the  latter  was 
seventy-nine  years  of  age.  But  Herder  had  only 
entered  on  his  sixtieth  year,  and  had  just  published 
his  translation  of  the  Spanish  Romances  of  the  *  Cid/  the  work 
which,  perhaps,  most  of  all  has  preserved  his  fame  in  the  memory 
of  the  German  nation.  His  sympathy  with  the  French  Revolution 
and  other  circumstances  had  estranged  him  from  Goethe ;  he 
looked  with  coldness,  or  even  with  aversion,  on  Goethe  and 
Schiller’s  common  labours,  and,  in  order  to  depreciate  their  achieve¬ 
ments,  he  exalted  the  productions  of  the  eighteenth  century  far 
above  their  due.  His  controversy  with  Kant  had  served  to  isolate 
him  still  further.  Kant  himself  died  in  1804.  at  the  age  of  eighty; 

Schiller’s  and  on  May  10,  1805,  Schiller,  in  whose  mental 
death,  1805.  development  the  Kantian  philosophy  had  caused  a 
real  ferment,  was  snatched  away  in  the  midst  of  most  successful 
labours,  at  the  early  age  of  forty-two. 

To  Goethe,  Schiller’s  death  was  a  terrible  blow,  and  greater 
trials  were  yet  in  store  for  him.  In  Schiller  he  had  lost  the  most 

faithful  of  friends  and  colleagues,  but  in  the  next  year, 
Battle  of  b  J 

Jena  (1806)  by  the  Battle  of  Jena,  the  future  of  Germany,  and 

and  its  even  the  very  existence  of  the  Duchy  of  Weimar,  were 

eonse-  hazarded.  The  nation  for  which  he  had  lived  was 
quences. 

deeply  humiliated,  and  the  prince  whom  he  had  served 
was  threatened  with  loss  of  his  throne.  But  the  worst  appre¬ 
hensions  were  not  realised ;  the  Duke  retained  his  land,  and 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller. 


199 


Goethe  rallied  his  powers  for  fresh  efforts.  He  was  nearly  sixty 
years  old,  but  the  struggle  against  a  dreadful  fate  seemed  to  give 
him  fresh  strength  ;  he  sought  to  conclude  his  labours,  to  round 
off  his  literary  career,  and  found  that  this  led  him  into  new  creations. 
He  published  a  complete  collection  of  his  works,  Goethe’s 
including  the  first  part  of  ‘  Faust.’  He  gave  to  the  later  works, 
world  his  ‘  Theory  of  Colour.’  He  turned  with  fresh  zeal  to  his 
historical  studies,  and  furnished  most  important  contributions  to 
the  history  of  the  human  mind.  He  sought  to  give  expression  to 
the  great  movements  of  the  times  in  symbolical  and  allegorical 
compositions.  The  necessity  of  self-renunciation  was  now  particu¬ 
larly  borne  in  upon  him,  and  he  gave  expression  to  this  truth  in  the 
‘  Wahlverwandschaften  ’  (Elective  Affinities),  and  in  the  sequel  to 
‘  Wilhelm  Meister.’  New  generations  were  arising,  new  views  were 
asserting  themselves,  or  else  old  ones  in  a  new  form,  and  Goethe 
embraced  or  opposed  these  views  with  the  same  energy  as  he  had 
shown  in  earlier  years.  It  was  not  till  after  1815  that  age  seemed 
perceptibly  to  grow  upon  him  ;  in  1816  his  wife  died,  and  in  1817 
he  gave  up  the  management  of  the  theatre.  But  he  still  wrote  or 
edited  various  autobiographical  and  scientific  works,  and  he  com¬ 
pleted  ‘Wilhelm  Meister’s  Wanderjahre.’  He  was  still  able  to 
write  such  a  poem  as  ‘die  Trilogie  der  Leidenschaft,’  and  he  was 
yet  to  publish  the  ‘  Westostliche  Divan,’  and,  above  all,  to  complete 
‘  Faust.’ 

Schiller. 

Schiller  was  born  in  lowly  circumstances,  and  dragged  on  many 
years  in  poverty.  His  father,  an  officer  in  the  Wiir-  Schiller’s 
temberg  army,  held  an  appointment  as  park-keeper  life  and 
at  a  country-seat  of  the  Duke  of  Wiirtemberg’s.  ciiaracter- 
Schiller  was  educated  at  the  Duke’s  academy,  and  was  destined  for 
the  bar,  but  his  dislike  of  law-studies  led  him  to  renounce  the 
'legal  career.  After  slightly  studying  medicine  he  was  appointed 
regimental  surgeon,  but  by  this  time  his  whole  thoughts  were  really 
absorbed  by  literary  interests.  His  publication  of  the  ‘  Robbers  ' 
(1781)  brought  down  on  him  the  displeasure  of  the  tyrannical 
Duke  of  Wiirtemberg,  the  same  who  had  imprisoned  Schubart, 


200 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XII. 


(see  p.  1 1 6).  Schiller  resolved  to  escape  from  a  place  so  uncongenial 
to  him  as  Stuttgart,  and  fled  with  a  friend  to  Mannheim.  After 
this  he  went  through  many  vicissitudes,  often  finding  himself  in 
great  want,  till  in  1787  he  came  in  search  of  fortune  to  Weimar. 
Schiller’s  wild  and  turbulent  youth  was  reflected  in  his  early  poetry. 
His  poetic  talent  rushed  on  regardless  of  rules  ;  his  first  works  were 
inspired  by  revolutionary  zeal  and  delight  in  powerful  effect's.  No 
one  counselled  him  on  his  way,  but  the  public  loudly  applauded 
him,  and  he  found  enthusiastic  friends.  He  long  strove  in  vain  to 
gain  a  firm  footing  anywhere,  nor  did  he  ever  attain  a  large  share 
of  the  world’s  good  things.  The  Duke  of  Weimar  gave  him 
a  small  professorship  in  Jena,  and  later  on  he  led  a  meagre 
existence  in  Weimar.  To  add  to  his  troubles,  soon  after  his 
migration  to  Weimar  his  health  began  to  fail.  But  fate  granted 
him  three  great  gifts :  the  friendship  of  Goethe,  the  unfailing  love 
of  his  noble  wife  Charlotte  von  Lengenfeld,  and,  what  was  still 
more  than  happiness  in  friendship  and  marriage, — inextinguishable 
nobility  of  soul.  Though  he  had  to  wait  long  and  pass  through 
many  trials  and  struggles  before  a  ray  of  happiness  brightened  his 
lot,  yet  there  remained  something  in  his  soul  untouched  by  all  his 
troubles,  something  which  could  soar  above  them.  The  turbulent 
youth  became  a  man  of  firm  and  noble  character. 

Schiller  watched  with  interest  the  steps  in  Goethe’s  develop¬ 
ment,  and  was  much  influenced  by  his  writings  before  he  became 
acquainted  with  him.  Like  other  young  poets,  Schiller  was 
carried  away  by  the  literary  revolution  inaugurated  by  ‘  Gotz/ 
But  from  the  beginning  his  fundamental  attitude  of  mind  was 
different  from  Goethe’s.  While  Goethe  found  his  ideals  again  in 
reality,  Schiller.  measured  reality  by  the  ideal,  and  found  it  want- 
ing.  Reality,  the  world  of  sense,  the  prose  of  everyday  life,  what 
Goethe  called  ‘the  common  ’  (das  Genuine) — all  this  Schiller  sought 
from  the  first  to  transcend,  and  transcended. 

His  youthful  plays  wrere  satirical.  In  ‘  Die  Rauber,’  in  ‘  Fiesco/ 
His  youthful  in  ‘  Kabale  und  Liebe,’  he  painted  republican  ideals 
plays  and  as  a  contrast  to  the  condition  of  Germany  at  that  time, 

poems.  t0  tpe  despotism  and  oppression  which  he  saw  imme¬ 
diately  around  him.,  His  youthful  poems,  written  for  the  most  part 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller . 


201 


in  pompous  trochees,  show  all  the  glaring  colours  and  effective 
rhetorical  devices  of  the  satirist,  strong  contrasts,  exaggerated 
pictures,  and  a  rich  use  of  high-sounding  words.  Among  them 
we  may  mention:  ‘Eine  Leichenphantasie,’  ‘Die  Schlacht,’  ‘Die 
Kindesmorderin,’  ‘  Hector’s  Abschied,’  ‘  Rousseau,’  the  poems  to 
Laura,  ‘Die  Freundschaft,’  and  ‘Triumph  der  Liebe.’  A  Wiirtem- 
berg  war- song,  ‘  Graf  Eberhard  der  Greiner,’  reminds  us  of  that 
patriotic  poetry  which  the  Prussian  Grenadier  brought  into  vogue. 
In  his  earlier  poems  Schiller  seldom  struck  any  gentler  tones. 
Haller,  Klopstock,  and  Burger  were  his  poetic  models,  and 
Rousseau  was  the  philosopher  who  most  strongly  appealed  to 
him.  He  sought  to  express  sublime  ideas  in  grand  pictures,  but 
he  was  held  fast  by  a  gloomy  pessimism.  The  desires  of  his  heart 
rose  up  in  rebellion  against  the  commands  of  duty.  ‘  I  too  was 
born  in  Arcadia,’  he  exclaims,  ‘  but  my  short  spring  only  brought 
me  tears.’ 

But  just  as  Goethe  rose  from  the  pessimism  of  Werther  to  the 
optimistic  humanity  of  ‘  Iphigenie,’  so  too  for  Schiller  there  came 
a  time  of  liberation  and  purification.  The  happiness  of  friendship 
made  the  world  look  brighter  to  him.  From  the  depth  of  his  rejoicing 
heart  he  sang  that  wonderful  hymn  to  Joy  :  ‘  Freude,  Hymn, 
schoner  Gotterfunken.’  General  love  of  humanity,  ‘Andie 
tolerance,  and  reconciliation,  a  kind  Father  above  the  Freude. 
stars — these  thoughts  came  to  him  like  a  grand  revelation.  He 
formed  for  himself  a  mystical  philosophy,  entirely  built  on  the  idea 
of  love.  Without  faith  in  unselfish  love,  he  says,  there  could  be  no 
hope  of  God,  of  immortality,  or  of  virtue.  Love  was  God’s  motive 
in  creating  the  world  of  spirits.  Love  is  the  ladder  by  which  we 
attain  resemblance  to  the  Divinity.  To  die  for  a  friend,  to  die  for 
humanity,  these  seem  the  highest  proofs  of  love  which  the  poet  can 
conceive  of. 

At  this  time  his  ‘  Don  Carlos  ’  received  that  form  in  which  it  was 

presented  complete  to  the  public.  The  titular  hero 
-  ,  .  ...  c  ,  .  .  .  Don  Carlos, 

of  the  piece,  and  his  passion  lor  his  stepmother,  lost 

favour  in  Schiller’s  eyes,  and  Marquis  Posa,  the  representative  of 

liberal  ideas,  who  sacrifices  himself  for  his  friend  Carlos,  was 

brought  into  the  foreground  of  the  play.  This  change  affected 


202 


Weimar. 


[Ch.XII. 


the  whole  character  of  the  tragedy.  In  the  earlier  version  Philip 
and  his  son  Carlos  are  inimical  to  each  other,  and  base  intriguers 
try  to  widen  the  breach  between  them  and  to  hinder  a  reconcilia¬ 
tion  ;  but  Schiller  now  gave  the  play  a  more  refined  and  spiritual 
character;  a  friend  with  the  best  possible  intention  warns  Carlos,  who 
thus  becomes  suspicious  of  the  Marquis,  and  this  suspicion  results 
in  the  destruction  of  both.  In  the  earlier  version  the  naturalism 
of  the  satirist  predominated,  but  now  Schiller  sought  to  ennoble  his 
subject,  to  raise  individual  and  local  elements  to  a  universal  level,  and 
to  give  expression  to  his  own  ideal  of  perfection.  In  ‘  Don  Carlos’ 
he  made  the  same  transition  to  idealistic  art  which  Goethe  had 
made  in  his  ‘  Iphigenie.’  He  struck  out  the  wild  and  bombastic 
tirades  against  the  priests,  which  he  had  at  first  put  in  the  mouth  of 
his  Don  Carlos,  and  replaced  them  by  an  indirect  but  all  the  more 
effective  warfare.  He  abandoned  the  rhetorical  style,  and,  following 
Lessing’s  example,  made  the  play  generally  more  concise. 

Lessing’s  ‘  Nathan/  Goethe’s  4  Iphigenie,’  and  Schiller’s  ‘Don 
‘Nathan’  Carlos’  are  the  first  important  examples  of  German 
*  iphigenie,’  iambic  tragedy.  All  three  are  devoted  to  the  ideals 
of  humanity  and  toleration.  In  each  of  them  there  is 
one  prominent  scene,  in  which  a  despotic  sovereign 
is  made  to  hear  the  voice  of  truth,  and  is  unable  to  resist  its  force. 
There  is  a  striking  resemblance  even  in  detail  between  the  scene  in 


and  ‘  Don 
Carlos.’ 


‘  Nathan,’  where  the  wise  Jew  puts  the  Sultan  to  shame,  and  the 
scene  in  ‘  Don  Carlos,’  where  the  Marquis  Posa  touches  the  heart 
of  the  Spanish  despot.  Only  we  must  remember  that  when 
Lessing  published  ‘  Nathan  ’  he  was  fifty  years  old,  and  that  when 
Schiller  published  ‘  Don  Carlos  ’  he  was  twenty-eight.  There  is 
certainly  more  probability  in  the  course  of  things  represented  in 
Lessing’s  drama,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  sober  Nathan 
ranks  as  a  poetic  creation  above  the  enthusiastic  youth  Posa. 
Both  plays  are  a  protest  against  religious  intolerance.  But  while 
Nathan  moves  the  heart  of  Saladin  by  appealing  to’  his  better 
nature,  to  the  ideals  which  are  alive  also  in  his  breast,  Posa  looks 
for  freedom  of  thought  from  the  pupil  of  the  Great  Inquisitor,  and 
demands  from  the  son  of  Charles  V  a  state  in  which  the  law  should 
not  be  dictated  by  the  will  of  one  individual,  and  in  which  the 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller . 


203 


sovereign’s  chief  aim  should  be  the  happiness  of  his  people. 
Schiller  wished  to  portray  that  ‘  manly  pride  before  king's  thrones/ 
which  he  had  demanded  in  his  ‘  Hymn  to  Joy.'  And  character 
it  was  just  the  immaturity  of  such  a  character  as  Posa’s  of  Marquis 
that  appealed  to  men’s  hearts ;  in  its  very  psycho-  posa. 
logical  and  poetic  faults  there  lay  an  irresistible  power.  Two 
years  before  the  outbreak  of  the  French  Revolution  Schiller 
painted  one  of  those  enthusiasts  who  then  appeared  in  real  life, 
and  in  part  determined  the  destinies  of  Europe.  In  Posa  he 
created  a  political  ideal,  which,  even  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
inspired  many  popular  leaders,  and  which  played  its  part  in 
revolutions  and  constitutional  struggles. 

Lessing  had  used  the  stage  as  a  pulpit,  Schiller  made  it  into  an 
orator's  tribune.  But  changes  in  his  own  views  led  him  gradually 
further  and  further  from  the  tendencies  of  his  early  dramas.  The 
French  Revolution  filled  him  with  horror:  the  former  „  ....  , 
worshipper  of  Brutus  wished  to  take  up  his  pen  in  horror  at  the 
defence  of  Louis  XVI,  and  felt  that  he  could  no  more  French 
seek  the  majesty  of  human  nature  among  the  masses;  Revolution* 
the  events  of  the  times  robbed  him  of  all  political  hopes  ‘  for 
centuries/  as  he  said.  He  now  recognised  that  the  ennobling  of 
human  character  must  precede  all  attempts  at  the  reform  of 
government. 

Schiller  now  sought  to  master  Goethe’s  new  poems  critically,  and 

to  learn  from  them.  He  made  a  thorough  study  of  £  Egmont,'  and 

wrote  a  detailed  criticism  of  1  Iphigenie/  and  this  latter  drama 

directed  him  to  Euripides.  He  now  first  learnt  to  appreciate 

the  Greeks,  and  thought  they  would  help  him  to  acquire  true 

simplicity.  He  translated  two  plays  of  Euripides  and  he  read  Voss’s 

Homer.  In  a  grand,  thoughtful  poem,  he  mourned  ‘DieGotter 

for  the  Greek  deities,  and  in  another  he  praised  the  Griechen- 
.  .  _  ,  .  ttij  land’s,’  and 

glorious  vocation  of  the  artist.  He  had  a  very  high  « Die  Kiinst_ 

ideal  of  what  a  poet  should  be.  He  says,  that  since  ler.’ 

a  poet  can  only  give  his  individuality  in  his  poetry,  his  first  and 

greatest  task  should  be  to  ennoble  that  individuality,  to  raise  it  to 

the  level  of  the  purest  and  grandest  humanity.  Ripe  and  perfect 

productions  can  only  flow  from  a  ripe  and  perfect  mind. 


204 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XII. 


Schiller  resolved  to  raise  his  own  mind  to  this  lofty  level,  but  the 
consequence  was  that  his  poetic  activity  slumbered  for  a  long 
period.  Between  the  appearance  of  ‘  Don  Carlos  ’  and  the  com- 
Novel,  pletion  of  ‘Wallenstein'  a  period  of  twelve  years 
‘  Der  Geist-  elapsed.  A  novel  entitled  ‘  The  Ghost-seer’  remained 
erseher.  unfinished.  Plans  for  an  epic  poem  on  Frederick  the 
Great  or  Gustavus  Adolphus  never  got  beyond  the  preliminary 
metrical  exercises.  For  Schiller,  the  period  from  1787  to  1 799  was 
similar  to  that  which  Goethe  passed  through  after  his  Italian 

Period  of  j°urney  5  ^  was  a  ^me  °f  distaste  for  poetry,  a  time 
preparation  of  preparation,  research,  and  reflection,  from  which 
and  research,  he  returned  with  his  mind  enriched  and  ripened  to 
1787-1799.  cuhivation  of  the  drama.  Not  only  was  Goethe 
stirred  up  through  Schiller  to  fresh  poetic  creation,  but  Schiller  too 
was  through  Goethe’s  friendship  led  back  from  science  to  poetry. 
Their  friendship  was  for  each  the  beginning  of  a  new  era  of  pro¬ 
ductiveness.  While  Goethe  extended  his  knowledge  by  observation, 
Schiller  devoted  himself  to  speculation,  and  made  himself  at  home 
in  the  world  of  ideas.  While  Goethe  looked  around  in  nature  and 
art,  and  thereby  won  for  himself  a  new  ideal  of  cultured  poetry, 
Schiller,  during  this  interval  of  rest  from  poetic  production,  studied 
history  and  philosophy  and  gained  thereby  new  aesthetic  principles. 
Histories  Two  larger  historical  works  and  several  small  essays 
bear  brilliant  testimony  to  his  talent  as  a  historian. 

‘  Don  Carlos  ’  led  him  on  to  write  the  history  of  the 
*  Revolt  of  the  Netherlands,’  and  the  ‘  History  of  the 
Thirty  Years’  War’  suggested  to  him  the  writing  of 
‘  Wallenstein/  The  Kantian  philosophy  produced  a 


‘  Abfall  der 
Nieder- 
lande,’  and 
1  Dreissig- 
jahriger 
Krieg/ 


powerful  impression  on  him,  and  he  felt  moved  to  develop  it  and 
Schiller’s  also  to  oppose  it.  He  not  only  learnt  to  bear  cheer- 

philosophy.  fully  a  suffering  life  full  of  disappointments  and 
privations,  but,  with  a  peculiar  kind  of  asceticism,  he  rose  with 
sublime  heroism  above  all  earthly  suffering  into  the  calm  regions 
of  art.  He  learnt  to  contemplate  without  envy  the  happiness  of 
others  which  was  denied  to  him,  the  happiness  of  such  an  Olym¬ 
pian  nature  as  he  saw  before  him  in  Goethe.  His  philosophy 
was  conditioned  by  the  circumstances  of  his  own  life.  He 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller. 


205 


depreciated  the  sensuous  world  as  much  as  any  mediaeval  oppo¬ 
nent  of  Lady  World,  and  he  exalted  all  the  higher  that  divine  art 
which  raises  men  above  earthly  things.  Beauty,  according  to  Schiller, 
is  supersensuous,  as  everything  good  and  great  is  with  Kant.  But 
whereas  Kant  would  only  recognise  as  good  what  was  done  against 
the  natural  inclinations,  Schiller,  on  the  contrary,  praised  that  con¬ 
dition  of  man  where  duty  and  inclination  coincide,  where  the 
supersensuous  and  the  sensuous  worlds  are  in  harmony.  Art  pro¬ 
duces  this  condition,  and  to  Schiller  it  seemed  realised  in  the  Greek 
divinities.  Schiller,  like  Goethe,  returned  to  the  old  mythological 
ideals.  The  Greeks,  he  said,  transferred  to  Olympus  what  ought 
to  be  carried  out  upon  earth  ;  they  banished  from  the  faces  of 
their  glorious  gods  the  traces  of  care  and  labour  which  furrow 
the  brow  of  mortals,  as  well  as  the  worthless  enjoyment  which 
smooths  the  vacant  countenance,  and  they  liberated  the  eternally 
placid  Olympians  from  the  chains  of  any  duty  or  high  purpose 
in  life. 

As  with  Goethe  the  study  of  nature  and  of  art  each  reaped  benefit 
from  thejpther,  so~history  and  philosophy  dlcTwith  Schiller.  The 
philosophical  ideas  in  which  he  found  rest  furnished  him  the  means 
for  surveying  in  large  outlines  the  development  of  the  human  race, 
and  for  detecting  the  greatest  contrasts  of  style  in  the  history  of 
literature.  To  him  as  to  Herder  the  fullest  glory  in  this  respect 
seemed  to  rest  on  the  Greeks.  But  the  disciple  of  gchiller  a 
Rousseau  still  believed  in  a  lost  ideal  state  of  humanity,  disciple  of 
which  he  calls  nature,  and  which  stands  in  contrast  to  Rousseau, 
civilisation.  (See  ‘  Die  vier  Weltalter/  and  ‘  Das  Eleusische  Fest.’) 
Plants,  minerals,  animals,  and  landscapes,  the  peculiar  conduct  of 
children,  the  ways  of  rustics  and  of  primitive  man,  all  seem  to  him 
to  belong  to  the  same  order.  They  are  what  we  were,  and  what 
we  ought  to  become  again ;  our  civilisation  is  meant  to  lead  us  by 
the  paths  of  reason  and  freedom  back  again  to  nature.  They  are 
pictures  of  our  lost  childhood,  and  at  the  same  time  of  our  highest 
ideal  perfection.  ‘  Naivete'  is  their  common  characteristic;  the 
naivete  which  the  child  possesses  is  to  be  found  also  in  the  most 
perfect  women  and  in  the  mode  of  thought  of  a  genius.  The 
Greeks  had  this  na'ivete\  and  Schiller  calls  Goethe  a  ‘  naive  ’  poet, 


206 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XII. 


while  he  designates  himself  and  kindred  spirits  as  £  sentimental/ 
‘Naive’  The  naive  poet  is  natural ;  the  sentimental  poet 
and  ‘ senti-  seeks  to  be  so.  The  former  reproduces  reality; 
mental’  the  latter  represents  the  ideal.  The  poetry  of  the 
poets.  former  pas  the  advantage  in  its  sensuous  reality,  that 
of  the  latter  in  its  loftier  subject.  The  former  exercises  a  calm¬ 
ing  influence,  the  latter  an  agitating  one.  The  former  gives  us 
pleasure  in  the  living  present,  while  the  latter  makes  us  discontented 
with  real  life. 

Schiller’s  philosophy  frequently  supplied  him  with  material  for 
his  poetry.  Numbers  of  his  poems  have  art  for  their  subject,  the 
poetic  art  in  particular.  (‘  Die  Theilung  der  Erde/  ‘  Dithvrambe,’ 
Poems  on  *  Tie  Macht  des  Gesanges,’  ‘Pegasus  im  Joche.’)  The 
Art,  and  on  beautiful,  says  Schiller,  lives  not  in  the  real  world,  but 
the  Beau-  0nly  jn  the  heart  and  the  soul.  In  vain  the  pilgrim  sets 
out  to  find  the  heavenly  and  imperishable  anywhere 
on  earth.  (‘  Der  Pilgrim.’)  The  way  to  the  ideal  leads  away  from 
real  life.  (‘  Das  Ideal  und  das  Leben.’)  Sometimes,  it  is  true, 
beauty  appears  on  earth  ;  ‘  in  a  vale  among  poor  shepherds,’  poetry 
may  find  a  home.  (‘  Das  Madchen  aus  der  Fremde.’)  Arcadia 
lies  around  the  child  playing  in  its  mother’s  lap.  (‘  Der  Spielende 
Knabe.’)  Women  and  children  reveal  the  perfection,  the  original 
destiny  of  man.  The  plants  too  are  symbols  of  this  perfection  : — 
‘Suchst  du  das  Hochste,  das  Grosste  ?  Die  Pflanze  kann  es  dich  lehren. 

Was  sie  willenlos  ist,  sei  du  es  wollend — das  ist’s  !’ 

Schiller  also  likes  to  linger  over  the  great  stages  in  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  human  race,  to  trace  how  the  darkness  of  primitive 
barbarism  was  gradually  lightened,  how  the  savages  became  men, 
how  men  first  lived  in  harmony  with  nature  and  dominated  her, 
how  they  went  astray  from  nature,  and  finally  returned  to  her  by 
their  own  free  will.  (‘  Das  Eleusische  Fest.’) 

There  is  little  of  deep  speculation  in  all  this,  but  many  fruitful 
General  ideas,  to  which  the  poet  returns  again  and  again,  re- 
cliaracter  of  producing  them  under  a  hundred  different  aspects. 
Schiller’s  No  other  literature  possesses  a  poetry  of  thought  sur- 
poetry.  passing  this  in  spiritual  significance,  in  wealth  of 
imagination,  in  power  of  form.  Schiller’s  vocabulary  is  not  rich, 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller. 


207 


but  he  turns  it  to  the  best  advantage.  Where  he  makes  use  of 
rhyme  he  inclines  to  become  rhetorical ;  but  his  distichs  rank 
equal  with  Goethe’s,  and  he  surpasses  Goethe  in  his  power  of 
coining  aphorisms  and  giving  them  epigrammatic  force.  The 
‘  Votivtafeln  ’  are  specially  remarkable  in  this  respect ;  Tlie 
in  their  comprehensive  treatment  of  the  typical  rela-  ‘Votiv- 
tions  and  typical  contrasts  of  life,  they  almost  come  up  tafeln. 
to  the  cultured  realism  of  Goethe.  The  poet  imparts  a  charm  even 
to  subjects  whose  fitness  for  poetic  treatment  one  would  at  first  be 
inclined  to  doubt,  such  as  the  various  poetic  metres.  He  shows 
marvellous  power  of  graphic  representation  in  such  poems  as  ‘  Der 
Tanz  ’  or  ‘  Herculaneum  und  Pompeji.’  A  poem  like  ‘Der  Abend’ 
stands  quite  by  itself ;  it  is  a  short  ode  in  Klopstockian  metre, 
describing  the  evening  scene  in  mythological  pictures.  The  sym¬ 
bolism  by  which  Schiller  sometimes  gives  to  lifeless  things  a  human 
signification,  is  quite  in  Goethe’s  style;  the  ‘  Song  of  ‘Lied  von 
the  Bell  ’  rises  to  the  highest  level  possible  in  this  der  G-locke.’ 
class  of  poetry.  The  realistic  description  of  the  casting  of  the  bell 
which  runs  throughout  the  poem,  and  the  constantly  recurring 
pictures  of  life  which  are  connected  with  it,  the  extraordinary  skill 
with  which  all  the  important  human  relations  are  treated, — childhood, 
youth,  love,  marriage,  the  happy  household,  the  fire' which  destroys 
it  from  without,  death  which  destroys  it  froid  within,  the  splendid 
pictures  of  order  and  peace,  of  war  and  revolution,  all  contri¬ 
bute  to  render  this  poem  quite  unrivalled  in  literature. 

Though  Schiller’s  particular  views  are  constantly  recurring  in 
these  poems,  yet  his  own  personality  is  kept  in  the  background. 
He  wishes  to  teach  universal  truths,  and  even  where  he  represents 
feelings,  it  is  by  means  of  imaginary  situations  and  fictitious 
characters.  He  endeavours  wholly  to  forget  himself  in  his  subject. 
Classical  mythology  and  hero-legends  often  supplied  poems  on 
him  with  materials  (‘  Klage  der  Ceres,’  ‘  Das  Sieges-  classical 
fest,’  ‘  Kassandra,’  &c.).  The  Trojan  cycle  of  legends  subJects  and 
possessed  from  early  years  the  greatest  fascination  for 
Schiller ;  but  now  he  drove  self-renunciation  so  far  as  to  trans¬ 
port  himself  into  the  feelings  of  North-American  savages,  and 
to  sing  their  lament  for  the  dead.  (‘  Nadowessier’s  Todtenlied.’) 


208 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XIL 


Ballads. 


Not  only  classical,  but  also  mediaeval  subjects  transformed  them¬ 
selves  quickly  and  easily  under  his  hand  into  a  series 
of  ballads,  expressive  of  the  most  various  moods,  and 
often  most  powerful  in  depicting  a  chain  of  destiny.  (‘  Ritter 
Toggenburg,’  ‘Der  Kampf  mit  dem  Drachen.’)  The  Greek  idea 
of  the  envy  of  the  gods  is  as  graphically  brought  before  us  in  ‘  Der 
Ring  des  Polycrates/  as  mediaeval  piety  is  in  ‘  Der  Gang  nach 
dem  Eisenhammer,’  or  the  connection  between  guilt  and  punish¬ 
ment  in  ‘  Die  Kraniche  des  Ibycus.’  Schiller  repeatedly  gives  to 
these  narratives  the  unity  of  a  dramatic  scene,  but  at  the  same 
time  he  affords  brilliant  evidence  of  his  epic  power  in  the  Homeric 
fulness  of  detail  of  his  descriptions.  He  was  able  to  make  up  for  a 
somewhat  narrow  field  of  natural  observation  by  study,  and  power 
of  imagination.  For  the  splendid  description  of  Charybdis  in  ‘Der 
Taucher,’  the  utmost  which  he  had  at  his  command  was  a  few  verses 
of  the  Odyssey,  which  he  realised  by  his  acquaintance  with  the 
rushing  and  roaring  of  a  mill-stream.  Most  graphic,  too,  is  his 
description  of  the  wild  animals  in  ‘  Der  Handschuh,’  and  of  the 
horrible  dragon  slain  by  the  Maltese  knight  in  ‘  Der  Kampf  mit 
dem  Drachen.’ 

These  poems  of  Schiller’s  show  that  he  had  learnt  to  appreciate 
the  complex  variety  of  life,  instead  of  contenting  himself  with  mere 
startling  contrasts.  He  had  grasped  the  history  of  various  periods, 

Schiller’s  an<^  rea%  entered  into  its  spirit.  His  study  and 
his  philosophy  were  of  constant  benefit  to  his  poe¬ 
try,  and  he  had  acquired  that  power  of  objective 
treatment,  of  self-renunciation,  which  is  the  hardest 
demand  of  art.  This  power  is  particularly  apparent  in  the 
‘Wallen-  dramas  which  he  now  produced,  and  especially  in 
stein.’  ‘  Wallenstein,’  where  the  chief  characters,  with  the  ex¬ 
ception  of  Max  and  Thekla,  appealed  so  little  to  his  personal  feel¬ 
ings,  that  he  was  able  t^  be  completely  objective  in  his  treatment 
of  them.  In  his  ‘  History  of  the  Thirty  Years’  War,’  Schiller  had 
pictured  the  mysterious  general  as  free  from  the  religious  prejudices 
of  his  time,  and  hence  falling  a  victim  to  the  power  of  the  Church ; 
it  was  no  great  step  from  this  view  to  making  him  the  representa¬ 
tive  of  Liberalism,  and  letting  him  succumb  to  the  Jesuits,  just  as 


treatment 

becomes 

objective. 


Ch.  XIi.] 


Schiller . 


209 


Don  Carlos  and  Marquis  Posa  succumbed  to  the  Inquisition.  But 
Schiller  did  not  make  this  the  chief  motive  of  his  drama,  but  sub¬ 
ordinated  it  to  another  point  of  view.  He  conceived  his  hero  as 
the  type  of  the  practical  realist,  such  as  he  had  described  him  in 
one  of  his  scientific  treatises.  Wallenstein’s  desires  Character  of 
draw  him  down  to  earth ;  power  and  greatness  are  to  the  kero, 
him  the  highest  good,  without  which  life  would  not  be  worth  living. 
Such  a  character  as  this  was  totally  out  of  sympathy  with  Schiller  s 
personal  feelings,  and  he  felt  that  in  so  far  as  his  audience  was 
possessed  with  his  own  idealistic  views,  in  so  far  such  a  character 
would  be  repugnant  to  them.  It  seemed,  therefore,  all  the  more 
necessary  to  him  to  make  the  ‘romantic  son  of. fortune/  whom  he 
placed  in  the  centre  of  his  dramatic  poem,  appeal  to  the  human 
sympathies  in  the  hearts  of  his  audience.  He  sought  to  give  him 
all  the  moral  dignity  which  he  could  possibly  attribute  to  a  realist, 
and  formed  him  in  part  after  such  models  as*  Karl  August  and 
Goethe.  He  not  only  endowed  him  with  extraordinary  strength  of 
will,  an  unusual  talent  for  ruling,  a  generous  disposition,  which 
bound  noble  characters  to  him  and  idealized  his  picture  in  their 
souls,  but  he  also  attributed  to  him  a  mind  which  recognised  in 
all  that  happened  a  lofty  necessity,  and'  which  desired  to  subor¬ 
dinate  itself  to  nature  as  a  whole.  J  In  the  peculiar  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  Thirty  Years’  War/  Wallenstein’s  object  is  not  to 
serve  the  interests  of  the  Emperor,  or  the  interests  of  the  Jesuits, 
but  to  seek  the  .  welfare  of  the  German  Empire  and  to  bring 
about  a  European  peace.  He  only  enters  into  alliance  with  the 
Swedes  in  order  to  carry  out  his  lofty  aims,  and  careless  about 
differences  of  creed,  he  even  favours  Protestantism  where  it 
might  promote  his  objects.  Moreover,  Schiller  brings  his  hero 
into  pathetic  situations,  where  those  whom  he  loves  turn  from 
him,  and  those  whom  he  trusts  forsake  him.  He  also  lays 
bare  to  us  the  source  of  his  actions,  the  thoughts  and  struggles 
which  precede  them.  Besides  the  outer  and  inner  world,  he,  like 
Goethe,  introduces  us  to  the  sphere  of  fancies,  forebodings,  visions, 
superstitions  and  divine  dispensations,  and  seeks  to  replace  as  far 
as  possible  by  these  means  the  supernatural  phenomena  of  ancient 
tragedy.  He  showed  a  true  view  of  the  world  in  representing 


VOL.  11. 


p 


210 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


‘  man  in  the  midst  of  life’s  turmoil,’  not  separated  from  the  general 
course  of  the  world,  but  intimately  involved  in  it.  He  followed  his 
own  contemptuous  view  of  life  and  reality  in  representing  the 
realist  as  drawn  to  destruction  by  those  material  advantages  to 
which  he  clings  so  strongly,  and  as  attaining  himself  to  the  percep¬ 
tion  that  :  ‘  The  earth  belongs  to  the  evil  spirit,  not  to  the  good.’ 
By  these  various  means  Schiller  attained  deep  and  powerful  effects, 
and  diminished  the  guilt  of  his  hero  by  explaining  as  completely  as 
possible  his  mode  of  action. 

Wallenstein,  as  Schiller  represents  him,  was  as  a  youth  serious 

Wallen-  beyond  his  years,  solitary  and  reserved,  but  sometimes 

stein’s  roused  to  strong  feeling.  A  fall  from  a  high  win- 

career.  dow  ancj  bis  wonderful  escape  from  death  deepened 
his  seriousness ;  he  became  a  Roman  Catholic,  and  after  that  con¬ 
sidered  himself  a  being  favoured  by  Providence.  In  the  war  he 
rose  quickly  to  importance ;  the  Emperor  loved  him  and  trusted 
him,  and  he  was  successful  in  all  that  he  undertook.  But  horrible 
deeds  were  done  in  the  Imperial  service.  Wallenstein  became  the 
scourge  of  all  lands,  and  drew  down  a  thousand  curses  on  his  head. 
At  the  Diet,  of  Regensburg  the  storm  which  had  been  gathering 
burst  upon  him,  and  the  Emperor  sacrificed  him  to  his  enemies. 
From  the  time  of  his  fall  he  was  a  different  man,  wavering  and  un¬ 
sociable,  suspicious,  gloomy,  and  restless.  He  sought  to  replace 
by  an  outward  support  the  inward  reliance  which  he  had  lost ;  he 
devoted  himself  to  astrology,  and  sought  counsel  from  the  stars  when 
his  own  mind  wavered.  His  recall  to  the  supreme  command  of  the 
troops  did  not  make  things  better;  it  did  not  result  from  favour  or 
good  will,  but  from  the  Emperor’s  need  of  him,  and  Wallenstein 
himself  made  no  secret  of  his  intention  to  be  his  own  master,  and 
no  longer  to  allow  the  decrees  of  the  court  to  be  imposed  upon 
him.  He  used  the  Imperial  authority  as  an  instrument  for  carrying 
out  his  own  policy.  He  negociates  with  the  Swedes,  at  first  only 
purposing  to  strengthen  his  power  thereby,  to  keep  all  paths  open 
to  his  ambition,  and  so  finally,  in  one  way  or  another,  to  gain  a 
monarch’s  crown  when  the  peace  comes.  He  dallies  with  the 
thought  of  a  tremendous  deed,  without  the  serious  intention  of 
carrying  it  out.  But  the  mere  evil  thought  produces  strained  re- 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller. 


21  I 


lations  which  react  on  him  and  interfere  with  his  freedom  of  choice. 
He  is  loo  proud  to  conceal  his  bold,  ambitious  schemes.  Such  men 
as  Illo  and  Terzky  urge  him  on  to  revolt,  because  they  see  that 
they  will  reap  their  own  base  advantage  from  the  step.  In  obedi¬ 
ence  to  a  false  dream-oracle,  he  puts  implicit  trust  in  Octavio  Pic- 
colomini,  and  it  is  this  very  Octavio  who  reports  to  Vienna  every 
rebellious  utterance  and  every  daring  step  of  the  General’s.  He 
has  also  other  spies  around  him,  and  the  court  thinks  him  guilty 
of  high-treason  long  before  he  really  is.  His  enemies  try  to  draw 
away  his  army  from  him,  and  thus  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  second 
deposition ;  they  stir  up  his  anger  and  provoke  him  afresh  to  dis¬ 
obedience.  But  he  still  shrinks  from  treason,  and  feels  the  force 
of  duty.  He  has  an  evil  genius  by  his  side  in  his  sister-in-law, 
Countess  Terzky,  and  a  good  one  in  young  Max  Piccolomini. 
His  sister-in-law  forestalls  his  good  counsellor  by  a  few  minutes, 
and  these  few  minutes  decide  his  fate.  He  concludes  the  alliance 
with  the  Swedes,  and  breaks  the  chains  of  duty.  Wallenstein’s 
whole  conduct  only  becomes  intelligible  to  us  when  we  recognise 
what  enormous  power  he  held  in  his  hands,  how  much  this  power 
was  due  to  his  own  personal  efforts,  and  how  strong  the  temptation 
must  therefore  have  been  to  him.  (Cf.  Prologue  to  ‘  Wallenstein/) 
Schiller  has  made  us  intirtiately  acquainted  with  the  lower  as 
well  as  with  the  upper  strata  of  Wallenstein’s  army.  Eleven  acts 
did  not  seem  to  him  too  much  in  order  to  attain  his  object,  and  the 
first  of  these  acts,  ‘  Wallenstein’s  camp,’  shows  us  the  First  part, 
poet  at  the  summit  of  his  art,  while  it  also  shows  how  ‘Das  Lager.’ 
much  he  had  learnt  from  Goethe.  Instead  of  the  naturalism  of  his 
youthful  dramas  he  here  adopts  Goethe’s  generalising  and  typical 
method.  All  the  possible  types  of  military  life  are  embodied  in  in¬ 
dividuals,  who  are  cleverly  contrasted  with  each  other.  They  are 
characterized  by  their  various  conduct  towards  civilians  and  peasants, 
by  their  different  estimates  of  Wallenstein,  and  by  their  different 
views  of  the  military  profession,  as  well  as  by  more  individual 
traits.  We  are  led  up  from  the  lower  to  the  higher  types  of  mili¬ 
tary  life,  and  are  introduced  to  an  idealist  among  all  the  realists,  in 
the  person  of  the  Walloon  Cuirassier  serving  under  Max  Piccolo- 
mini.  A  most  varied  picture  of  life  is  unfolded  before  us,  and  the 


p  2 


Weimar. 


212 


[Ch.  XII, 


climax  is  attained  in  the  splendid  soldier’s  song  at  the  end  of  the 

act :  ‘  Frisch  auf,  Kameraden,  auf’s  Pferd,  auf’s  Pferd  !’ 

The  various  types  of  soldier  somewhat  prepare  us  for  the 

various  types  among  their  leaders,  as  they  are  brought 

Second  and  before  us  jn  t^e  <  Piccolomini  *  and  in  the  closing 
third  parts,  ° 

‘Die  Piccolo- tragedy :  ‘Wallenstein’s  death.’  The  generals  are 
mini,’  and  not  only  outwardly  classified  as  those  who  remain 
steinVTod ’  throughout  devoted  to  Wallenstein,  such  as  Illo  and 
Terzky,  those  who  from  the  beginning  are  decidedly 
against  him,  such  as  Octavio  Piccolomini,  and  those  who  go  over 
from  Wallenstein  to  the  Emperor,  such  as  Isolani,  Buttler,  and 
Max  Piccolomini,  but  they  also  furnish  among  themselves  typical 
contrasts,  though  less  accentuated  than  in  the  characters  of  the 
‘  Camp.'  Here  again  the  scale  rises  from  the  base  to  the  noble, 
from  egoism  to  self-sacrifice,  and  again  an  idealist,  Max  Piccolo¬ 
mini,  stands  out  prominently  amid  the  ranks  of  the  realists  and 
materialists.  However  different  the  motives  of  action  may  be  in  the 
different  individuals,  yet  the  poet  has  throughout  taken  care  that 
Wallenstein’s  departure  from  his  duty  should  appear  as  the  real 
cause  of  the  army’s  defection  from  him.  In  ‘  Don  Carlos  ’  even 
the  ideal  characters  are  not  over-scrupulous  about  faithfulness  and 
honesty,  when  it  is  a  question  of  advancing  the  good  cause  ;  but  in 
‘Wallenstein’  Schiller  ranges  himself  sternly  on  the  side  of  duty, 
loyalty,  and  law,  on  the  side  of  the  conservative  virtues  and  the  old 
institutions  which  offer  resistance  to  arbitrary  power.  He  attacks 
revolution  like  Goethe,  and  he  also  attacks  it,  like  him,  by  aesthetic 
means.  He  maintains  an  impartial  attitude  towards  his  characters, 
and  does  not  throw  all  the  light  on  the  one  side  and  all  the  shadow 
on  the  other.  Only  Gordon,  commander  of  Eger,  a  friend  of 
Wallenstein’s  youth,  unites  full  sympathy  for  the  general  with 
thorough  loyalty  to  the  emperor.  Of  those  who  remain  faithful 
to  law  against  arbitrary  power,  some  do  so  out  of  purely  ignoble 
motives,  some  out  of  a  mixture  of  base  and  noble  inducements. 
Characters  of  The  Pa^r  °f  lovers  m  the  tragedy,  Max  Piccolomini, 
Max  and  Octavio’s  son,  and  Thekla,  Wallenstein’s  daughter,  are 
Tliekla.  ^  most  consistent  idealists  in  the  piece ;  they  are 
both  ruined  by  the  conflict  of  their  own  characters  with  those  of 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller . 


213 


Contrast 
between 
idealist  in 
Max,  and 
realist  in 
Wallenstein. 


their  respective  fathers.  When  they  tear  themselves  from  Wallen¬ 
stein’s  side  and  flee  from  the  malicious  powers  of  life,  his  good 
angels  seem  to  have  depart-ed  from  him.  But  even  these 
good  angels  are  not  quite  faultless.  Max  says  he  would  pardon 
forcible  resistance  and  even  open  rebellion  in  the  great  hero,  when 
threatened  at  his  post,  but  he  cannot  forgive  treason,  he  cannot 
forgive  his  allying  himself  with  the  enemy.  And  Theklais  wanting 
in  strength  of  character,  for  after  Max’s  death  she  gives  way  to  the 
selfish  longing  of  an  overwhelming  grief,  and  forsakes  her  duty, 
forsakes  her  mother  in  the  moments  of  her  deepest  distress. 

The  realist  is  one-sided  and  so  is  the  idealist,  and  only  both  in  con¬ 
junction  furnish  a  complete  picture  of  humanity.  This 
is  Schiller’s  teaching  in  1  Wallenstein/  Max  and 
Thekla  form  the  necessary  supplement  to  the  other 
characters.  The  idealist,  Max,  stands  in  striking  con¬ 
trast  with  the  realist,  Wallenstein,  a  contrast  destined 
to  be  one  of  the  most  momentous  features  in  the  tra¬ 
gedy.  We  might  consider  Max  the  real  hero  of  the  second  part 
of  the  trilogy,  and  Wallenstein  only  the  hero  of  the  third  part.  Max 
is  very  much  younger  than  Wallenstein ;  he  has  received  many 
kindnesses  from  him,  and  carries  an  idealized  picture  of  him  in  his 
soul.  Where  the  realist  loves,  says  Schiller,  he  will  seek  to  make 
happy ;  where  the  idealist  loves  he  will  seeL_teL,erLnoble.  The 
realist  can  even  forgive  baseness  in  thought  and  action,  only  not 
arbitrariness  and  eccentricity;  thus  Wallenstein  suffers  such  men 
as  Illo  and  Terzky  about  him,  and  does  not  reckon  upon  gratitude 
from  an  Isolani,  but  Octavio’s  unsuspected  falseness  overwhelms 
him.  ‘  That,’  he  exclaims,  ‘  has  happened  contrary  to  the  course 
of  the  stars  and  to  destiny.’  The  idealist,  on  the  other  hand,  will 
reconcile  himself  to  the  extravagant  jmd_ tremendous,  if  only  it 
testifies  to  force  of  character,  to  great  capabilities^  thus  Max  would 
even  understand  and  pardon  Wallenstein’s  open  rebellion,  but  not 
his  treachery.  Where  the  realist  would  ask  what  anything  is  good 
for,  the  idealist  asks  whether  it  is  good  in  itself.  Where  Wallen¬ 
stein  follows  expediency,  Max  follows  right.  Max  sets  reason, 
Wallenstein  natural  necessity,  against  established  tradition.  Max 
tells  his  general  he  need  enquire  of  no  other  oracle  but  the 


214 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XII. 


one  in  his  own  conscience;  he  himself  follows  the  voice  of  his 
heart,  and  his  heart  decides  for  duty.  Human  nature,  Schiller 
teaches,  is  not  capable  of  a  consistent  idealism ;  even  the 
idealist,  in  order  to  act  morally,  must  be  fired  by  enthusiasm, 
and  can  do  nothing  except  he  be  inspired.  Then  indeed  he  is 
able  to  accomplish  great  things,  and  his  conduct  will  be  charac¬ 
terized  by  a  loftiness  and  nobleness  which  will  be  sought  in  vain  in 
the  actions  of  the  realist.  But  even  Max’s  soul  is  not  so  constituted 
as  to  wander  in  cold  serenity  along  the  path  of  duty ;  he  too  has 
an  inward  struggle  to  go  through.  His  inclinations  draw  him  to 
Wallenstein  whom  his  duty  commands  him  to  leave ;  Thekla 
must  assure  him  that  he  has  chosen  the  right.  Then  there  flashes 
on  his  mind  a  thought  in  which  he  sees  salvation ;  he  will  fight 
against  the  Swedes,  and  will  fall  in  battle.  Acting  under  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  this  enthusiasm,  he  leads  his  followers  to  death.  ‘  He 
is  the  happy  one,’  Wallenstein  says  of  him,  ‘  his  life  is  complete 
and  perfected and  he  feels  how  much  he  will  miss  his  noble 
character - 


‘The  bloom  has  now  departed  from  my  life, 

And  cold  and  colourless  it  lies  before  me. 

He  stood  beside  me  like  my  vanished  youth, 

He  made  reality  seem  like  a  dream, 

And  round  the  common  show  of  earthly  things 
He  threw  the  golden  halo  of  the  dawn.’ 

The  rising  scale  of  characters,  the  systematic  representation  of 
Unreality  of  contrasts,  the  typical  conception  of  the  individuals, 
‘Wallen-  all  this  removes  ‘  Wallenstein’  as  a  work  of  art  from 
stein.’  the  sphere  of  reality.  Schiller  strongly  insisted  that 
art  should  furnish  only  a  semblance,  a  show  of  things  as  they 
are,  that  the  audience  should  never  be  allowed  to  forget  this,  should 
never  be  reminded  forcibly  in  the  drama  of  common-place  reality. 
This  idea  is  here  realised  in  the  first  instance  by  the  rhymed  dog- 
grel  in  which  all  the  characters  in  the  ‘  Camp  ’  are  made  to  speak. 
The  iambics  of  the  two  following  tragedies  serve  the  same  purpose, 
which  is  still  further  strengthened  by  the  traditional  dramatic 
fiction  that  all  the  characters  should  be  able  to  give  a  detailed  and 
well-expressed  exposition  of  their  views  and  opinions.  Schiller  did 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller. 


215 


not  mind  letting  the  hero  and  his  generals  speak  with  most  un¬ 
military  verbosity.  Throughout  he  effects  his  characterization 
more  by  means  of  what  his  dramatis  persona  say  about  themselves, 
and  what  others  say  of  them,  than  by  actions  which  should  reveal 

their  character  to  the  audience.  He  only  occasion- 

_  The  charac- 

ally  attempts  to  make  the  language  characteristic  of  teristic  and 
the  speaker,  as  for  instance  in  the  4  Camp/  and  in  the  idealized 
the  colloquy  between  Buttler  and  Wallenstein’s  mur-  dramatic 
derers ;  in  the  latter  scene  we  are  made  acquainted  Style’ 
with  the  wild,  ruffianly  soldier  of  the  4  Thirty  Years’  War/  and  the 
brutality  of  the  murderers  serves  to  enhance  the  grandeur  of  their 
victim.  Perhaps  this  mixture  of  the  two  styles,  the  characteristic 
and  the  idealized,  is  a  mistake  in  the  drama.  It  might  have  been 
better  if  one  or  the  other  had  been  adhered  to  consistently  through¬ 
out.  The  motley  life  and  the  many  small  though  somewhat  dis¬ 
connected  actions  in  the  ‘  Camp/  serve  by  their  brightness  and 
vivacity  to  dim  the  interest  of  the  long-sustained  speeches  in  the 
‘  Piccolomini  ’  and  4  Wallenstein’s  Death.’ 

With  the  conclusion  of  this  tragedy  Schiller  had  discovered 
the  new  and  classical  form  for  his  dramas  in  general.  Though 
he  always  modified  the  treatment  in  each  play,  in  accordance  with 
its  subject,  yet  on  the  whole  we  may  say  that  henceforward  he 
only  applied  with  full  freedom  the  art  which  he  had,  so  to  speak, 
newly  acquired  in  writing  4  Wallenstein.’  Unfortunately  he  was  only 
able  to  complete  four  more  original  plays :  4  Mary  Smart,’ 4  The  Maid 
of  Orleans/  4  The  Bride  of  Messina/  and  4  Wilhelm  Tell.’ 

4  Mary  Stuart  ’  was  one  of  his  older  projects,  and  perhaps 
originally  planned  like  4  Don  Carlos  ’  as  an  attack  « Maria 
on  Catholic  policy.  But  in  his  actual  execution  Stuart.’ 
of  the  drama  Schiller  abstained  from  giving  it  any  such  one¬ 
sided  tendency.  He  had  now  become  tolerant  . 

/  -  ...  Schiller  s 

enough  to  look  at  Catholicism  from  a  purely  artistic  impartial 

point  of  view,  and  to  subordinate  his  own  religious  attitude 

opinions  to  the  artistic  ends  of  the  drama.  He  towards 

.  .  .  .  Catholicism, 

is  perfectly  impartial  in  his  representation  of  the 

effects  of  the  Jesuit  Propaganda  upon  Mortimer,  and  equally 

impartial  in  his  presentment  of  a  Catholic  religious  function. 


21 6 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


His  only  object  is  to  exalt  his  heroine  and  to  gain  for  her 
the  sympathy  of  the  audience.  He  does  not  attempt  to  conceal 
the  fact  that  she  is  supported  by  the  League  and  the  Jesuits, 
but  he  does  not  bring  it  prominently  before  us,  so  as  not  to 
detract  from  her  merits  in  the  eyes  of  a  Protestant  audience. 
In  other  ways  too,  everything  is  done,  as  in  ‘  Wallenstein,’ to 
make  the  heroine  appeal  to  our  human  sympathies.  Her 
Character  of  errors  are  represented  as  the  result  of  youthful 
Mary.  inexperience,  and  she  lives  to  repent  them  bitterly. 
Of  that  which  condemns  her  to  death  before  the  law  she  is  really 
innocent,  being  only  incriminated  by  the  false  witness  of  a  former 
servant.  She  exercises  a  magical  influence  on  all  who  approach 
her,  and  there  is  nothing  more  touching  than  the  scene  in  the 
fifth  act,  where  the  love  and  devotion  of  her  faithful  servants  makes 
them  throw  themselves  at  her  feet  in  the  face  of  death.  Mortimer, 
too,  is  fascinated  by  her,  and  dares  for  her  sake  an  attempt  on 
Elizabeth’s  life ;  Leicester  also  falls  under  the  charm,  and  leaves 
Elizabeth  for  her,  and  many  others,  whom  we  only  just  hear  men¬ 
tioned,  have  succumbed  to  her  wonderful  attraction.  Love  and  hatred, 
earthly  passion  and  earthly  desires  have  not  been  banished  from  her 
soul  by  misfortune.  Her  meeting  with  Elizabeth  in  the  garden  at 
Fotheringay  reveals  her  true  character.  She  is  transported  with 
delight  at  being  allowed  to  enjoy  the  beauties  of  nature  again,  and 
her  sanguine  character  makes  her  take  this  favour  as  an  earnest  of 
complete  liberty  soon  to  be  given  her.  In  her  exalted  frame  of  mind 
she  feels  she  cannot  humble  herself  before  Elizabeth  as  she  ought, 
and  when  she  stands  face  to  face  with  the  Queen,  the  woman  and 
the  demon  break  out  in  her ;  she  annihilates  her  victim  with  words, 
but  in  so  doing  weaves  her  own  destruction,  and  yet  counts  herself 
blessed,  since  she  has  tasted  revenge.  In  the  face  of  death,  how¬ 
ever,  all  earthly  desires  forsake  her.  She  forgives  those  who  have 
done  her  wrong,  and  hopes  by  her  innocent  death  to  atone  for 
her  old  crime,  her  complicity  in  the  murder  of  her  husband  and 
her  marriage  with  the  murderer.  In  this  chastened  mood  she 
goes  to  the  scaffold. 

The  more  Mary’s  character  was  exalted,  the  more  her  rival 
had  to  be  degraded.  Everything  in  the  outward  course  of  the 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller. 


217 

play  turns  on  the  incident  of  the  signing  of  the  death-warrant  by 
Elizabeth.  It  is  not  human  sympathy  that  makes  her  character  of 
hesitate  to  sign  it,  but  only  fear  of  the  reproach  of  Elizabeth, 
tyranny.  The  group  of  statesmen  around  her  is  excellently 
drawn  ;  Burleigh  is  hard  and  unfeeling,  desiring  Mary’s  death  for 
reasons  of  state  policy  ;  Leicester  is  miserably  weak  and  faith¬ 
less,  loving  Mary  and  wishing  to  save  her,  yet  without  sufficient 
courage  for  the  deed,  and  at  the  last,  only  concerned  about  his  own 
safety.  Elizabeth  indirectly  incites  first  Paulet,  Mary’s  keeper  at 
the  time,  and  then  Mortimer,  his  nephew,  to  the  murder  of  her 
enemy;  but  the  former  is  too  upright,  and  the  latter  is  a  secret 
disciple  of  the  Jesuits  and  ardently  devoted  to  Mary.  Jealousy 
and  wounded  pride  finally  persuade  Elizabeth  to  the  fatal  step. 
In  the  scene  with  Mary  in  the  garden  at  Fotheringay  she  feels 
herself  lowered  in  Leicester’s  eyes,  and  this  determines  her.  Under 
the  pretence  of  yielding  to  the  importunities  of  the  people,  and 
under  the  impression  that  Mortimer  is  going  himself  to  make  an 
attempt  on  Mary’s  life,  she  signs  the  death-warrant,  but  even  then 
in  a  form  which  shall  shield  herself  and  throw  the  blame  on  her 
secretary.  She  purposely  leaves  him  with  the  signed  warrant  in 
his  hands,  refusing  to  give  him  definite  instructions.  Burleigh, 
finding  him  in  perplexity  and  despair,  snatches  the  paper  from  him 
and  causes  the  sentence  to  be  put  into  execution.  And  Elizabeth 
then  actually  disowns  the  action  of  the  secretary!  Talbot,  the 
honest  man  at  court,  cannot  stand  this  and  resigns  his  office ; 
Leicester,  overwhelmed  by  Mary’s  death,  goes  to  France. 

Schiller  has  sketched  the  contrast  between  the  two  rivals  with 
great  power,  but  has  not  carried  it  very  deep.  Mary,  contrast 

who  has  a  bad  name,  is  better  than  her  reputation ;  between 

Elizabeth,  who  is  generally  respected,  is  worse  than  the  two. 
her  reputation.  Mary  is  generous  and  open-hearted,  and  ready  to 
acknowledge  her  sins ;  Elizabeth  is  cautious  and  underhand  in 
action,  and  a  hypocrite.  While  Mary  is  chastened  and  raised  to 
a  level  where  she  no  longer  feels  the  want  of  earthly  delights, 
Elizabeth,  sinks  in  the  eyes  of  her  most  faithful  servants  and  loses 
those  earthly  good  things  which  she  thinks  so  much  of.  The 
lower  side  of  feminine  nature  is  made  the  chief  lever  of  action  in 


2l8 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


the  drama,  and  brings  about  the  catastrophe.  Jealousy  turns  the 
balance;  Mary  Stuart  finds  satisfaction  in  pouring  out  insulting 
speeches  on  her  rival's  head,  and  it  is  this  that  incites  Elizabeth  to 
vengeance. 

To  a  certain  extent  this  tragedy  may  be  considered  as  a  practical 
example  of  Schiller’s  theoretical  dictum,  that  in  the  ancient  classical 
Excellences  drama,  which  he  endeavoured  to  follow,  more  importance 
of  composi-  was  attached  to  the  chain  of  events  than  to  the  present- 
tion  and  ation  of  character.  The  exposition  in  the  first  act  of 
style.  ‘Mary  Stuart"'  is  a  masterpiece  of  technique  ;  it  gives  us 
interesting  action  and  dialogue,  the  dialogue  resulting  from  the  ac¬ 
tion  and  also  characterizing  the  speakers,  while  at  the  same  time  it 
communicates  to  the  audience  what  is  essential  for  them  to  know. 

In  ‘Mary  Stuart’  Schiller  gave  new  evidence  of  that  .impartiality 
and  objectivity  which  he  had  acquired  in  writing  his  ballads  and 
‘  Wallenstein.’  There  is  no  character  in  the  piece  which  is  entirely 
after  the  poet’s  own  heart.  The  idealism  of  Max  Piccolomini  is 
not  to  be  found  here,  and  Mortimer,  who  plays  very’  much  the 
same  kind  of  part,  is  one  of  those  enthusiasts  whom  Schiller  in 
his  mature  years  judged  so  hardly,  one  of  those  self-willed  natures 
who  know’  no  restraint  for  their  turbulent  desires,  and  think  that 
liberty  consists  in  the  abrogation  of  all  moral  laws. 

With  the  same  tolerance  as  he  has  shown  in  ‘  Mary  Stuart/ 
Die ‘Jung-  Schiller  in  the  ‘Maid  of  Orleans’  again  chose  a 
frau  von  Catholic  heroine,  one  of  the  miraculous  figures  of  the 
Orleans.’  Middle  Ages.  But  his  Joan  of  Arc  is  also  a  represent¬ 
ative  of  ideal  womanhood,  a  champion  in  a  good  cause,  consecrated 
by  religion  and  by  her  own  pure  nature.  Schiller  throws  his 
whole  sympathies  into  the  scale  on  her  side.  He  meant  her  to  be 
an  embodiment  of  that  naivete  which  he  esteemed  so  highly,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  picture  once  more  the  sad  fate  of  the  beautiful 
upon  this  earth.  (See  ‘Das  Ideal  und  das  Leben.’)  Her  peace 
of  soul  is  destroyed  as  soon  as  earthly  love  lays  hold  on  her  heart. 
Schiller's  Johanna  is  no  Amazon  of  heroic  bearing  and  manly 
Character  of  disposition,  but  a  simple,  pathetic  character  with  a 
Johanna,  childlike  imagination,  childlike  language,  and  a  holy 
childlike  faith,  which  is  the  source  of  her  power.  She  comes  from 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller . 


219 


that  idyllic,  pastoral  region  where  poetry  and  beauty  have  their 
home.  In  her  the  angel  and  the  child  are  united,  and  as  soon  as 
she  ceases  to  be  a  child,  as  soon  as  the  woman  makes  itself  felt  in 
her,  the  charm  is  broken.  The  supernatural  world  is  made 
almost  as  prominent  and  material  in  this  play  as  in  Goethe’s 
‘  Faust.’  Johanna  herself  possesses  miraculous  power  and  wisdom, 
and  has  visions.  After  her  heart  has  been  touched  by  human 
love,  she  feels  that  she  has  fallen  from  her  high  vocation,  and 
she  receives  the  accusation  condemning  her  in  silence,  as  a 
chastening  from  heaven.  At  length  she  overcomes  her  human 
passion  and  finds  peace  once  more.  In  her  imprisonment  her 
heroic  strength  returns  again,  and  a  new  miracle  comes  to 
her  aid ;  her  heavy  chains  fall  from  off  her,  she  liberates  the  king, 
triumphs  and  dies,  and  the  gates  of  heaven  open  to  receive  her. 

Schiller  was  not  quite  equal  to  the  task  which  he  set  himself  in 
writing  the  ‘  Maid  of  Orleans.’  He  meant  to  represent  in  his 
Johanna  the  charm  of  naturalness,  but  he  has  not  been  successful 
in  this.  When  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  is  overpowered  by  the  child¬ 
like  simplicity  of  her  words  we  can  only  marvel,  for  what  she  says 
does  not  affect  us  in  the  same  way.  Schiller  is  unable  to  express 
the  charm  of  naiveie \  and  he  replaces  it  by  declamatory  lyric 
strains. 

In  many  respects  the  ‘  Maid  of  Orleans  ’  resembles  an  opera. 
Even  the  prelude  has  an  operatic  ring  about  it,  and  Operatic 
Johanna  often  gives  utterance  to  what  might  be  called  character  of 
arias  —  lyrical,  declamatory  soliloquies,  sometimes  tlie  play- 
written  in  the  recognised  aria  form  of  rhymed  stanzas.  The  chief 
characters,  too,  are  rather  types  than  individuals,  and  Johanna,  the 
Dauphin  and  Agnes  Sorel  together  form  a  lyrical  trio,  more  suited 
to  the  opera  than  the  drama.  The  knights  are  all  cast  in  the  same 
mould,  and  are  arranged,  like  a  chorus,  in  two  groups,  the  English 
and  the  French,  with  Burgundy  in  their  midst,  who  goes  over  from 
the  former  to  the  latter  ;  and  in  the  English,  as  in  the  French  group, 
those  who  are  for  the  Maid  are  distinguished  from  those  who  are 
against  her.  Doubt  is  gradually  introduced  into  the  French  group, 
while  into  the  English  group  love  gradually  makes  its  way.  The 
evil  principle  is  represented  by  Queen  Isabeau,  the  implacable  enemy 


220 


Weimar . 


[Ch.  XII. 


of  the  Maid,  and  at  the  same  time  the  moral  opposite  of  all  that  is 
good  and  beautiful. 

The  characters  of  Talbot,  the  English  general,  and  Thibaut, 
Johanna’s  father,  are  also  meant  to  stand  in  contrast  to  the  Maid. 
Talbot  is  a  sceptical  man  of  the  world,  Thibaut  a  selfish  realist, 
who  has  no  faith  in  the  power  of  God  upon  earth,  and  only  fears 
the  power  of  devils.  Johanna  herself  wanders  through  the  play 
like  the  spirit  of  liberty,  and  succeeds  in  doing  what  Goethe’s 
Clarehen  failed  to  do.  She  stirs  up  her  nation  against  the  foreign 
intruders,  and  the  armies  which  she  leads  are  victorious.  She,  too, 
has  a  Brackenburg  by  her  side  in  her  faithful  peasant-lover, 
Raimond,  who  remains  absolutely  devoted  to  her,  and  stands  by 
her  when  all  forsake  her. 

The  ‘  Maid  of  Orleans '  is  a  chivalrous  drama,  and  in  it  Schiller 
General  ^as  not  wholly  scorned  the  usual  apparatus  of  this 
features  of  class  of  drama,  such  as  it  developed  itself  subsequently 
the  play.  t0  ^  appearance  of  Goethe’s  ‘  Gotz.’  But  Schiller’s 
play  rises  far  above  the  level  of  the  ordinary  chivalrous  drama,  in  the 
first  place  because  it  deals  with  occurrences  of  public  importance, 
not  with  private  outrages  and  feuds.  The  technical  difficulties 
arising  from  the  constant  fighting  are  surmounted  with  masterly 
skill.  Fights  between  large  numbers  are  reported,  single  conflicts 
are  directly  represented,  but  are  always  interwoven  with  human 
and  personal  interests.  There  are  some  things  in" this  play  that 
remind  us  strongly  of  the  Iliad,  such  as  the  constant  fighting,  the 
interference  of  the  supernatural,  the  equal  rank  of  all  the  nobles, 
and  their  attitude  towards  their  king.  The  language,  the  similes, 
the  situations,  even  the  metre  itself,  sometimes  point  to  Greek 
models,  and  something  of  the  Homeric  glory  seems  shed  over  the 
whole  drama. 

In  his  ‘  Bride  of  Messina  ’  Schiller  approached  more  nearly  than 
« DiS  Braut  m  any  other  of  his  dramas  to  the  classical  model, 
von  Messina.'  departing,  however,  from  one  rule  of  the  ancients  (as 
he  had  already  done  in  his  ‘  Maid  of  Orleans,’  though  not  in  ‘  Mary 
Stuart  ’  or  *  Wallenstein  ’),  in  representing  death  upon  the  stage. 
This  play  is  not  based  on  fact  or  tradition,  as  most  of  Schiller’s 
dramas  are.  Schiller  fully  recognised  that  his  special  strength  lay 


Ch.  XIIJ 


Schiller . 


221 


in  dramatising  historical  events,  in  spiritualising  reality,  and  pre¬ 
ferred  to  make  use  of  some  existing  story  rather  than  create  a  new 
one.  He  had  long  been  seeking  for  a  subject  which  should  offer 
all  the  advantages  of  Sophocles’  ‘  (Edipus  Tyrannus Resem 
but  since  he  could  not  find  one  which  would  fulfil  blance  to 
these  requirements,  he  invented  the  story  of  the  ‘  Bride  Sophocles’ 
of  Messina/  forming  it  after  the  model  of  Sophocles’  CEdipus* 
play.  In  the  ‘Bride  of  Messina/  as  in  ‘(Edipus/  we  have  a  home 
lying  under  a  curse,  an  oracle  which  a  man  seeks  to  flee  from  and 
just  thereby  fulfils,  a  child  which  was  meant  to  be  killed  but 
which  remains  alive,  unnatural  love  and  murder  of  a  near  relation, 
a  hidden  deed  which  in  the  course  of  the  play  comes  to  light,  and 
a  guilty  man  who  punishes  himself,  only  that  his  guilty  deed 
does  not,  as  in  the  Greek  drama,  lie  in  the  far  past,  but  is  quickly 
done,  and  quickly  discovered  and.  expiated  in  the  course  of  the 
same  day. 

Numerous  details  in  the  style  and  matter  of  this  drama  remind 
us  of  ancient  tragedy,  but  the  play  is  also  marked  by  Excellences 
original  talent  throughout.  In  none  of  Schiller’s  of  ttie  play, 
dramas  is  the  language  so  carefully  moulded  and  raised  to  such  an 
even  level  of  perfection  as  here.  He  has  nowhere  else  displayed 
such  unity  in  character-drawing,  or  lifted  us  into  such  a  pure  sphere 
of  poetry.  He  ventured  to  make  freer  use  than  usual  of  the 
creations  of  classical  mythology,  since  his  scene  was  laid  on 
Sicilian  soil,  where  Hellenism  lived  on  in  its  monuments,  and 
where  the  superstitious  fancy  of  the  Middle  Ages  could  nourish 
itself,  both  from  classical  and  Arabian  sources.  The  Sicilians 
had  always  been  noted  for  great  vigour,  heroism  and  stoicism, 
but  also  for  jealousy  and  revengefulness,  and  Schiller  in  his 
play  adhered  to  what  history  recorded  of  them.  Don  Caesar’s 
heart  burns  with  jealousy  against  his  brother ;  thirsting  for 
revenge  he  slays  him,  and  with  stoical  heroism  afterwards  kills 
himself. 

The  ‘  Bride  of  Messina/  like  Schiller’s  first  play,  ‘  The  Robbers,’ 
introduces  two  brothers  at  enmity  with  each  other.  The  idea  of 
tragical  conflicts  between  relations  was  one  which  had  a  deep  hold 
on  Schiller’s  imagination,  and  indeed,  in  the  eighteenth  century 


222 


Weimar. 


[Cb  XII. 


particularly,  there  were  many  instances  of  such  conflicts  in  real  life. 

Quarrel  There  was  an  increasing  feeling  in  favour  of  more 

brothers  its  intimacy  and  tenderness  in  family  relations,  but  m 
leading  idea,  many  cases  the  old,  hard  relationship  had  not  yet 
given  way  to  the  improved  state  of  opinion.  The  conflict  be¬ 
tween  Frederick  the  Great  and  his  father  furnishes  a  notable 
example  of  how  strained  the  paternal  and  filial  relation  might 
become  ;  and  Schiller  himself,  in  that  age  of  paternal  govern¬ 
ment,  must  on  his  flight  from  Stuttgart  have  felt  that  he  was 
rebelling  against  his  sovereign  like  a  son  against  his  father.  It 
seemed  to  him  a  fruitful  idea,  to  transfer  the  strongest  personal 
tension  into  that  very  family  circle  which  was  more  and  more 
growing  to  be  considered  as  the  abode  of  peace  and  tenderness. 
We  find  the  incident  of  conflicts  between  near  relations  playing 
some  part  in  every  one  of  his  plays.  The  two  hostile  brothers  in 
the  ‘  Bride  of  Messina,’  as  in  *  The  Robbers,’  are  in  love  with  the 
same  woman ;  but  this  woman  is,  without  their  knowing  it,  their 
own  sister,  and  the  father  of  these  three  had  robbed  his  father  of 
his  bride,  and  thereby  drawn  down  his  curses  on  his  head,  which 
are  now  fulfilled  in  his  grandchildren.  In  the  past  we  have  a 
conflict  like  that  between  King  Philip  and  Don  Carlos ;  in  the 
present  a  conflict  like  that  between  Karl  and  Franz  Moor,  or 
between  Eteocles  and  Polynices  in  Euripides. 

The  actors  in  the  ‘  Bride  of  Messina  ’  seem  to  arrange  them- 
Characters  selves  in  a  symmetrical  group  : — Isabella,  the  mother, 
of  the  play,  in  the  midst,  on  either  side  her  sons,  the  two  hostile 
brothers,  each  of  whom  is  surrounded  by  his  followers.  The 
mother  unites  the  two  sons,  but  there  is  yet  another  point  of  union 
for  all  three:  Beatrice,  the  daughter  and  sister,  unknown  at  first  to 
all  three  as  such,  and  whose  emerging  from  seclusion  conjures  up 
all  the  misfortune.  The  two  brothers  are  strongly  contrasted,  Don 
Caesar  being  hasty  and  wrathful,  Don  Manuel  melancholy  and 
reserved.  The  whole  tragic  issue  really  results  from  this  contrast, 
for  without  the  hastiness  of  the  younger  and  without  the  brooding 
melancholy  of  the  elder  brother,  the  catastrophe  would  not  have 
taken  place.  Their  former  quarrel,  which  rose  to  deadly  enmity, 
may  also  be  attributed  to  this  contrast  of  their  characters.  Their 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller. 


223 


father,  a  gloomy  despot,  only  suppressed  this  quarrel  by  force,  and 
never  tried  to  heal  it  bv  love.  In  their  relation  to  their  mother  both 
show  themselves  loving  sons  ;  both  fall  in  love  with  Beatrice  equally 
suddenly,  and  both  in  the  same  manner.  Beatrice  and  Isabella  are 
not  individualised  but  treated  typically.  The  unnatural  separation 
from  her  parents  poisons  Beatrice’s  young  life.  She  has  been 
secretly  saved  from  death  and  brought  up  in  seclusion,  is  secretly 
loved,  and  secretly  carried  off  by  order  of  her  lover.  She  succumbs 
to  feminine  weakness,  is  twice  disobedient  and  follows  her  own 
fancy,  and  her  curiosity  brings  about  the  fatal  denouement. 
Isabella  is  the  type  of  motherhood.  Her  maternal  affection  makes 
her  reconcile  her  two  sons,  and  save  her  daughter’s  life  by  concealing 
her.  But  gloomy  superstition  dominates  her  as  it  dominated  her 
husband.  She  leaves  her  daughter  in  concealment,  after  all  danger 
to  her  life  has  been  removed  through  her  father's  death,  simply 
because  she  is  afraid  that  a  dream  of  many  years  ago,  of  which 
a  monk  gave  her  a  terrible  interpretation,  may  be  realised  in 
this  daughter.  Gloomy  superstition,  unbridled  desires,  haste  in 
action,  are  the  characteristics  which  Schiller  attributes  to  the  ruling 
family  in  Messina.  They  are  of  northern  descent  and  rule 
tyrannically  over  a  Southern  people.  The  subject-people  bear  the 
oppression  with  gloomy  hatred ;  they  fan  the  quarrel  between  the 
brothers,  and  wish  misfortune  to  their  foreign  rulers.  Schiller  has 
expressed  the  feelings  of  the  Sicilian  people  through  the  mouths 
of  the  prince’s  followers.  He  attributes  to  them  the  passions 
of  a  subject  race,  but  at  the  same  time  a  wide-ranging  reflection, 
such  as  would  beseem  impartial  spectators.  He  united  them  in 
a  chorus,  or  rather  in  two  semi-choruses,  one  of  old  and  one  of 
young  men,  and  thus  completed  the  resemblance  to  the  classical 
drama. 

The  chorus  here  occupies  a  middle  position  between  the  chorus 
of  Greek  tragedy  and  the  organized  masses  or  uniform  introduction 
groups  which  Schiller  had  introduced  in  his  earlier  plays.  of  a  chorus. 
Tragedies  with  few  actors,  such  as  ‘  Iphigenie  ’  or  ‘  Tasso,’  were  not 
in  his  line.  He  liked  to  set  masses  in  motion.  In  his  first  play 
the  robbers  are  grouped  like  a  chorus  around  their  leader.  The 
conspirators  in  ‘Fiesco’  likewise  form  a  homogeneous  multitude. 


224 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


In  ‘  Don  Carlos  ’  Philip  the  Second’s  Court  affords  us,  at  least  in 
one  scene,  a  picture  rich  in  figures.  Wallenstein’s  camp  and 
Wallenstein’s  generals  present  a  grandly  organized  chorus.  The 
domestics  of  Mary  Stuart  and  the  suite  of  Queen  Elizabeth  con¬ 
tain  the  germs  for  choruses.  In  the  ‘  Maid  of  Orleans  ’  we  have 
two  hostile  armies  in  juxta-position.  So,  too,  in  the  ‘  Bride  of 
Messina’  the  semi-choruses  represent  two  hostile  armies,  the 
retinue  of  two  princes.  They  take  part  in  the  action,  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  Schiller’s  view  of  the  function  of  a  chorus  (see  Schiller’s 
preface  to  this  play:  ‘On  the  use  of  the  chorus  in  tragedy’);  but 
they  also  utter  general  reflections,  and  sometimes  speak  all  together 
as  a  whole,  thus  approximating  to  the  classical  tradition,  and  this 
for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  modern  German  stage.  They 
surround  the  central  action  with  a  glorious  web  of  lyric  poetry. 
All  the  most  important  facts  and  conditions  of  life  are  touched  upon 
as  in  the  ‘  Song  of  the  Bell/  and  the  whole  sensuous  power  of 
rhythm  and  rhyme  is  united  with  the  loftiest  thoughts  and  with  an 
entrancing  melody  of  language. 

The  ‘Bride  of  Messina  ’  is  thehighest  work  of  pure  art  that 
Schiller  has  produced.  He  maintainsa^effectly  objective  attitude 
towards  the  characters,  but  still,  a  certain  political  significance  may 
even  here  be  detected.  There  is  an  echo  in  this  play  of  his 
Schiller  the  °ld  favourite  theme,  the  struggle  against  tyranny, 
poet  of  Schiller’s  hatred  of  despotism  finds  expression  in 
Liberty.  every  one  0f  his  plays.  In  ‘  Wallenstein  ’  the  emperor 
and  his  servants  are  not  painted  in  the  best  light ;  in  ‘  Mary  Stuart,’ 
Elizabeth’s  tyranny  is  unsparingly  laid  bare ;  the  ‘  Maid  of  Orleans  ’ 
treats  directly  of  a  revolt  against  the  oppression  of  a  foreign 
conqueror;  and  so,  too,  the  ‘Bride  of  Messina  ’  pictures  the 
destruction  of  a  powerful  race  which  could  not  take  root  in  a 
conquered  land.  The  French  Revolution  and  the  events  which 
followed  it  may  very  likely  have  influenced  Schiller  in  the  choice  of 
these  subjects,  and  also  of  the  story  of  ‘  Wilhelm  Tell.’ 

‘Wilhelm  Tell’  represents  a  conspiracy  like  ‘  Fiesco,’  and,  like 
‘Wilhelm  the  ‘Maid  of  Orleans,’  gives  the  history  of  a  successful 
Tell.’  struggle  against  foreign  tyranny.  The  poet’s  attitude 
is  not  impartial  here  ;  his  whole  heart  is  clearly  on  the  side  of  the 


Ch.  XII.] 


Schiller . 


225 


oppressed  Swiss.  In  the  ‘Maid  of  Orleans '  Schiller,  had  repre¬ 
sented  a  peasant-girl  leaving  the  world  of  idyll  to  enter  the  great 
political  world,  so  as  to  restore  her  fatherland  to  independence. 
In  ‘  Wilhelm  Tell  ’  he  shows  us  a  whole  nation  living  in  the  world 
of  idyll  till  the  oppression  of  tyranny  breaks  in  upon  them ;  in 
the  end  they  throw  off  the  hated  yoke,  and  violated  nature  re-asserts 
her  sway.  In  the  Swiss  people,  as  in  Joan  of  Arc,  Schiller  wished 
to  portray  naivete  of  character,  and  he  has  succeeded  better  here 
than  in  the  ‘  Maid  of  Orleans/ 

In  ‘Wilhelm  Teir  the  Swiss  people  form  at  once  the  chorus 
and  the  centre  of  interest  of  the  drama.  The  Swiss  characters 
nation  itself  is  the  hero  of  the  play,  only  split  up  of  the  play, 
into  individuals,  and  represented  in  typical  characters.  In  the 
first  place  aristocracy  and  peasantry  are  distinguished.  The 
peasantry  is  represented  by  an  old  man,  a  man  in  the  prime  of 
life,  and  a  youth:  Walther  Fiirst,  Werner  Stauffacher,  and  Arnold 
Melchthal.  In  introducing  them  together  on  the  stage,  whenever 
he  requires  them,  Schiller  boldly  disregards  all  considerations  of 
dramatic  probability.  These  three  men  are  at  the  same  time  re¬ 
presentatives  of  the  three  Swiss  cantons  concerned  in  the  struggle, 
and  are  all  united  in  their  resistance  to  tyranny  and  arbitrary  force. 
The  old  man,  Walther  Fiirst,  is  friendly  towards  the  nobility,  while 
the  youth  is  opposed  to  them.  Among  the  representatives  of  the 
aristocracy,  too,  there  is  a  split  between  age  and  youth,  the  old  times 
and  the  new ;  the  old  Baron  of  Attinghausen  holds  with  the  pea¬ 
santry  and  with  liberty;  his  nephew  Rudenz  has  joined  the  foreign¬ 
ers.  But  it  is  only  love  of  the  noble  Bertha  von  Bruneck  that 
has  thus  led  him  astray,  and  the  maiden  whom  he  worships  directs 
him  herself  to  the  right  path,  and  points  out  to  him  his  duty  to 
stand  by  his  countrymen.  Rudenz  and  Melchthal,  the  aristocratic 
and  the  peasant  youth,  are  at  first  hostile  to  each  other,  but  in  the 
course  of  the  drama  they  draw  nearer  and  nearer  together,  and 
their  final  reconciliation,  their  mutual  co-operation,  their  bond  of 
friendship,  signify  the  reconciliation  of  classes. 

Wilhelm  Tell  stands  apart  in  the  midst  of  all  these  people,  in 
the  same  manner  as  Max  Piccolomini  is  isolated  from  the  chorus 
of  Wallenstein’s  followers.  He  is  not  represented  as  an  idealist, 


von.  11. 


226 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


in  contrast  with  realists,  for  here  all  live  in  the  state  of  harmonious 
Character  ideal  nature.  Tell  is  the  combative  sportsman  in  con- 
of  Tell.  trast  wjt’n  j-he  peaceful  shepherd ;  he  represents  the 
self-reliant  strong  men  in  contrast  with  more  ordinary  men  who 
believe  themselves  stronger  when  allied  with  others.  Tell  acts 
where  others  only  talk,  deliberate,  or  hesitate.  He  knows  no  fear, 
and  does  not  reflect  long  where  it  is  a  question  of  immediate  action ; 
at  the  same  time  he  is  humane  and  benevolent,  and  trusts  God’s 
help  in  time  of  need.  He  is  strong  and  active  in  body  and  expert 
in  all  manly  exercise,  a  sure  shot,  a  bold  sailor,  a  skilful  carpenter, 
and  always  ready  to  help  on  occasion.  He  is  scanty  of  words, 
but  on  his  solitary  paths  he  thinks  all  kinds  of  thoughts,  and  is 
looked  upon  as  a  dreamer.  Simple-hearted  and  unpretending, 
respectful  to  those  set  over  him,  and  less  inflamed  than  the  rest 
against  the  tyranny  of  the  imperial  governors,  he  is  willing  to  suffer 
and  be  silent,  to  wait  and  hope,  though  he  will  not  stand  aloof 
from  his  friends  in  case  they  really  want  his  aid.  Then  suddenly, 
tyranny  brutally  intervenes  in  his  own  life.  The  governor  Gessler, 
the  true  cold-blooded  tyrant  of  fiction,  totally  destitute  of  humane 
feelings,  and  resolved  to  subdue  the  Swiss  people  by  force,  this 
man  compels  Tell,  on  pain  of  death,  to  shoot  an  apple  from  the 
head  of  his  own  child.  Afterwards  he  treacherously  draws  a 
dangerous  confession  from  him,  and  then  causes  him  to  be  bound, 
meaning  to  imprison  him.  Tell  is  almost  miraculously  delivered 
from  the  hand  of  his  oppressor,  and  at  once  forms  the  firm  resolve 
to  kill  this  terrible  tyrant.  Gessler  has  sinned  against  nature  in 
arming  the  father’s  hand  against  his  son,  and  from  that  moment  he 
is  a  lawful  prey  in  the  natural  world,  and  the  outraged  father 
‘avenges  holy  nature/  by  killing  the  tyrant  as  he  would  have  killed 
a  wild  animal  which  threatened  danger  to  his  house.  Not  the 
slightest  moral  doubt  rises  in  his  mind.  He  is  firmly  convinced 
of  the  justice  of  his  deed ;  and  though  his  gentle  wife  is  horrified, 
and  though  John  Parricida  dares  to  put  himself  on  a  level  with 
him,  still  his  clear  conviction  remains  unshaken.  *  I  lift  up  my 
pure  hands  to  Heaven/  he  exclaims  to  Parricida,  ‘  and  curse  thee 
and  thy  deed/ 

The  story  of  Wilhelm  Tell  has  its  real  origin  in  an  old  myth 


Schiller. 


Ch.  XII.] 


227 


Story  of  Tell. 


which  was  adorned  with  all  the  elements  of  primitive  German  poetry. 
The  story  was  related  in  the  sixteenth  century,  with  a 
simplicity  worthy  of  Herodotus,  by  the  Swiss  chronicler, 

Aegidius  Tschudi.  Wilhelm  Tell  was  one  of  the  traditional  heroes 
of  the  Revolution.  Rousseau  had  mentioned  him  with  honour,  and 
the  Gottingen  band  of  poets  had  sung  of  him.  While  in  Switzer¬ 
land,  immediately  after  the  completion  of  ‘  Hermann  and  Dorothea/ 
Goethe  turned  his  attention  to  the  story,  meaning  to  make  an  epic 
out  of  it;  but  he  relinquished  the  plan  in  Schiller's  favour.  Schiller 
endeavoured  to  free  his  hero  from  all  connection  with  the  regicides 
of  the  French  Republic.  He  endowed  him  with  that  naive  convic¬ 
tion  of  right  which  is  to  be  found  in  a  primitive  age,  and  thus  by 
implication  established  the  principle  that  in  less  primitive  times  a 
similar  mode  of  action  must  be  judged  differently.  All  the  Swiss 
conspirators  only  wish  to  defend  their  wives  and  children.  They 
all  approve  Tell's  conduct,  especially  as  he  killed  the  tyrant 
at  the  very  moment  when  he  was  cruelly  hardening  his  heart 
against  the  pathetic  entreaties  of  a  poor  woman  whose  husband 
he  had  unjustly  imprisoned,  and  was  threatening  to  employ  new 
measures  of  violence  against  the  unhappy  land. 

Schiller's  ‘Wilhelm  Tell'  bears  some  points  of  resemblance  to 
Goethe's  ‘  Hermann  and  Dorothea/  Both  these  4  Wilhelm 
works  defend  the  good  old  customs  and  the  liberty  Tell’ and 
and  sacredness  of  hearth  and  home.  The  spirit  of  und  Doro. 
Homeric  poetry  breathes  in  both,  and  both  arose  from  thea.’ 
a  worship  of  humanity  in  a  state  of  nature  and  innocence. 

‘  Wilhelm  Tell'  is  the  first  of  Schiller's  plays  which  has  a  happy 

ending.  The  hero  does  not  succumb  or  die,  but  rises  with  fresh 

strength  and  frees  himself  from  his  oppressors.  We  Leading 

still  recognise  in  this  play  the  old  fundamental  thoughts  ideas  of 

of  Schiller’s  poetry,  the  Rousseauian  glorification  of  ‘Wilhelm 

0  Tell  ’ 

an  ideal  primitive  state  of  humanity.  In  his  other 
dramas  he  had  introduced  his  audience  to  a  world  which  had  grown 
beyond  the  state  of  nature.  The  world  of  reality  which  he  depicts 
will  not  tolerate  what  is  beautiful  and  noble,  and  drags  down  the 
man  who  follows  his  earthly  instincts.  The  good  are  in  harmony 
with  nature  and  with  heaven,  and  good  oracles  lead  them  in  the 

Q  2 


228 


Weimar. 


[Ch.  XII. 


path  to  glory.  The  bad  accept  evil  oracles,  and  a  race  which  sins 
against  nature  is  destroyed  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  In  ‘  Wil¬ 
helm  Tell’  we  are  surrounded,  for  the  first  time,  by  pure  nature, 
and  introduced  to  glorious  human  beings  in  a  glorious  country; 
the  unnatural  element,  which  destroys  idyllic  life,  comes  from  with¬ 
out,  and  disappears  before  the  breath  of  liberty ;  nature  asserts  her 
eternal  rights,  and  the  beautiful  is  not  destroyed,  but  survives. 

After  the  completion  of  ‘  Tell '  Schiller  had  begun  a  new  tragedy, 
Fragment,  ‘Demetrius/  taking  his  subject  this  time  from  Rus- 
‘  Demetrius.’  sian  history.  Again  he  brings  before  us  a  homoge¬ 
neous  mass  of  people,  skilfully  individualised,  and  a  Polish  diet  is 
presented  with  incomparable  power.  The  general  drift  of  the  play 
is  similar  to  that  of  the  ‘  Maid  of  Orleans  ’ — a  victorious  advance 
in  the  consciousness  of  a  good  cause,  fortune  favouring  the  hero, 
then  sudden  doubt,  inward  conflict  and  outward  defeat.  The  pre¬ 
tender,  who  believes  himself  to  be  the  rightful  ruler,  learns  that  he 
is  not,  but  nevertheless  continues  to  play  his  part  as  such ;  he  thus 
succumbs  to  the  malicious  powers  of  the  world,  and  falls  pierced 
through  at  the  feet  of  his  reputed  mother,  who  repudiates  him. 

Schiller  had  only  begun  the  second  act  of  ‘  Demetrius  ’  when  he 
Schiller  dies,  was  cut  off  by  death  at  the  early  age  of  forty-five. 

1805.  Glorious  as  are  his  achievements,  we  feel  that  if  he 
had  been  spared  he  might  have  presented  us  with  still  richer  and 
greater  works. 


1 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


ROMANTICISM. 


Goethe  died  on  the  22nd  of  March,  1832,  a  hundred  years  after 
the  appearance  of  Haller’s  poems,  Bodmer’s  translation  Qoethe  died, 
of  Milton,  and  Gottsched’s  ‘Cato/ — works  which  must  March  22, 
have  been  considered  at  the  time  as  important  literary  1832. 
events. 

Our  survey  of  German  literature  will  only  extend  to  this  point. 
The  figure  of  Goethe,  which  has  towered  above  all  others  since  the 
revolutionary  year  1773,  will  thus  still  remain  the  central  point  of 
interest  in  this  last  period.  Goethe  lived  to  see  p0et- 
at  least  two  generations  of  German  poets.  When  he  families, 
came  to  Leipzig  to  study,  Elias  Schlegel  was  still  in  great 
fame ;  when  he  formed  his  alliance  with  Schiller,  men  were  already 
beginning  to  speak  of  Elias  Schlegel’s  two  nephews  under  whose 
leadership  the  Romantic  school  gradually  developed  itself.  Shortly 
before  Goethe  planned  his  ‘  Gotz,’  Madame  Sophie  de  la  Roche, 
the  youthful  friend  of  Wieland  (see  vol.  ii.  p.  40)  published  her  first 
novel;  shortly  before  he  finished  his  ‘  Werther/  the  daughter  of 
Sophie  Laroche  married  an  Italian  merchant  Brentano,  in  Frank¬ 
fort,  and  Goethe’s  mother  used  to  tell  the  Brentano  children  just  as 
beautiful  fairy  stories  as  she  had  told  to  her  own  son  in  his  child¬ 
hood.  Two  of  these  Brentanos  attained  literary  fame :  Clemens 
joined  the  Romantic  school ;  Bettina,  afterwards  the  wife  of 
another  Romanticist,  Achim  von  Arnim,  had  an  enthusiastic 
devotion  for  Goethe,  and  after  his  death  wrote  a  highly  idealised 
description  of  himself  and  his  mother. 

Goethe’s  long  life  enabled  him  to  witness  several  important 
phases  in  the  intellectual  life  of  Germany.  In  his  youth  a  love 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


230 

for  the  historical  past  of  Germany  had  seized  on  the  minds  of 

many.  Imaginative  writers  filled  the  old  Teutonic 

Three  phases  j-orests  j3arcjs  anc[  Druids,  and  cherished  an 

m  German  —  - 

intellectual  enthusiastic  admiration  for  Gothic  cathedrals,  and  for 
life  the  knights  of  the  Middle  Ages  and  of  the  sixteenth 
witnessed  century#  Herder's  interest  in  the  past  had  the  widest 
range,  and  he  sought  out  poetry  in  all  forms,  in  all 
literatures,  among  all  nations.  Classical  antiquity  was  not  neglected 
at  this  time,  but  it  did  not  exclusively  dominate  the  general  taste. 

In  Goethe’s  mature  years,  on  the  contrary,  the  interest  in 
classical  antiquity  dwarfed  all  other  aesthetic  interests,  and  Ger¬ 
many  and  Europe  were  flooded  by  the  classical  fashion  for  which 
Winckelmann  had  given  the  first  strong  impulse.  The  churches 
became  ancient  temples,  the  mechanical  arts  strove  after  classical 
forms,  and  ladies  affected  the  dress  and  manners  of  Greek  women. 
The  leaders  of  German  poetry,  Goethe  and  Schiller,  both  attained 
the  summit  of  their  art  in  the  imitation  of  classical  models. 

But  in  Goethe’s  advancing  years,  with  the  beginning  of  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century,  a  counter-current  again  set  in.  Schiller’s  ‘  Maid  of 
Orleans’  and  his  ‘  Wilhelm  Tell’  marked  a  return  to  mediaeval  themes. 
The  tendencies  of  1770  to  1780,  which  had  never  quite  dis¬ 
appeared,  asserted  themselves  with  new  and  increased  force,  and 
the  love  of  classical  antiquity  became  once  more  but  one 
among  many  influences.  The  nations  which  were  groaning  under 
Napoleon’s  oppression  sought  comfort  in  the  contemplation  of  a 
fairer  and  grander  past.  Patriotism  and  mediae valism  became  for 
a  long  time  the  watchwords  and  the  dominating  fashion  of  the  day; 
not  that  catholic  literary  sympathies  disappeared  altogether,  any  more 
than  an  increased  piety  suppressed  the  freer  religious  movements. 
But  Herder’s  spirit  now  replaced  that  of  Winckelmann,  and  the 
literary  movement,  which  had  been  started  some  thirty  years  before 
against  the  school  of  Enlightenment,  was  now  called  Romantickm. 
-Roman-  All  foreign  literatures,  but  especially  the  old  German 
ticism.  and  popular  branches  of  poetry,  were  drawn  upon  for 
suggestions ;  while  the  grand  achievements  of  the  modern  classical 
period  of  German  literature  were  of  the  greatest  benefit  to  the 
succeeding  age.  The  scientific  activity  to  which  Herder  had  given 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science . 


231 


such  encouragement  was  continued.  New  efforts  were  made  in 
all  the  sciences,  new  points  of  view  gained,  and  new  forces 
acquired.  But  the  division  of  labour  now  became  greater,  and 
what  had  been  united  in  Herder  now  separated  itself  into  various 
currents.  The  single  branches  of  art,  science  and  learning 
acquired  more  representatives,  and  appealed  to  wider  circles,  and 
parties  were  now  divided  by  sharper  lines. 


Science. 


science  and 
poetry  in 
Germany  in 
the  18  th  and 
19th  centu¬ 
ries. 


German  science  and  poetry  in  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth 
centuries  were  sometimes  ranged  in  opposition  to  one  Reiation  of 
another,  sometimes  united  in  an  alliance  most  beneficial 
to  each,  though  not  without  its  dangers,  if  carried  too 
far. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  growth  of  science  gave 
a  strong  impulse  to  the  rising  school  of  poetry,  but 
feeling  and  imagination  had  to  free  themselves^  from  the  almighty 
sway  of  common  sense,  ere  German  literature  couldL  attain  its 
highest  development.  This  improvement  of  taste  again  reacted 
beneficially  on  science.  The  ponderous  accumulations  of  learning 
which  had  been  not  uncommon  in  the  previous  century,  disappeared, 
or  gave  place  to  convenient,  encyclopaedic  works  of  reference.  The 
German  genius  lost  that  heaviness  which  sometimes  clings  to  it, 
and  became  lighter,  easier  and  more  lively.  The  improvement  of 
language  produced  all  the  good  effects  which  Leibniz  had  expected 
of  it ;  greater  choiceness  of  expression  went  hand  in  hand  with 
greater  subtlety  of  thought,  and  this  improvement  gradually  spread 
to  all  branches  of  literature,  increasing  their  clearness,  and  in  con¬ 
sequence  strengthening  their  influence  on  the  nation. 

German  prose  now  assumed  a  more  artistic  form.  Journalism, 
as  it  rapidly  developed,  launched  out  into  all  styles, 
from  the  fiery,  metaphorical  periods  of  a  Gorres,  to  the 
short,  biting  sentences  of  a  Borne.  The  Austrian  State- 
papers  exhibited  the  harmonious  periods  of  Friedrich 
Gentz,  whose  dazzling  wealth  of  language  sometimes 
poured  itself  forth  with  all  too  great  fluency.  Savigny  handled 


Develop¬ 
ment  of 
German 
prose¬ 
writing. 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


232 

juristic  subjects  with  a  clearness  equal  to  Goethe's.  With  less 
success,  Varnhagen  sought  to  imitate  Goethe’s  style  in  his  numerous 
biographical  sketches.  A  farmer,  Johann  Schwerz,  wrote  ele¬ 
gantly  and  gracefully  on  farming  matters.  General  von  Clausewitz 
in  his  book  ‘  On  War,’  produced  a  scientific  and  literary  work  of 
the  highest  order;  it  combines  the  strict  logical  analysis  of  the 
eighteenth  century  with  the  careful  criticism  and  historical  learning 
of  the  nineteenth;  it  unites  deductive  theory  with  respect  for  facts 
of  experience,  and  shows  an  enchanting  originality,  together  with 
great  clearness  of  method  and  a  vigorous  and  picturesque  style. 

Among  the  writers  of  this  time  we  recognise  sometimes  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  Schiller,  sometimes  that  of  Goethe.  A  really  cultivated 
style  of  writing  now  arose,  though  at  the  same  time  there  were  not 
wanting  those  who  followed  Klopstock’s  example  in  experimenting 
with  the  language,  and  attained  a  certain  uncouth  originality.  But 
side  by  side  with  these  bunglers  there  were  a  few  writers,  like  Jacob 
Grimm  for  example,  who  had  a  natural  instinct  for  language,  and 
who,  by  appreciative  study  of  their  native  dialect  and  thorough 
understanding  of  the  hidden  laws  and  forces  of  speech,  developed 
a  truly  creative  power  of  language. 

The  women  of  this  period  were  not  behind  the  men  in  literary 
activity.  Schiller’s  sister-in-law,  Caroline  von  Wolzogen,  produced 
a  novel,  ‘  Agnes  von  Lilien,’  which  was  taken  by  professional 
Literary  critics  for  a  work  of  Goethe’s,  and  poetesses  like 
women.  Sophie  Mereau  and  Amalie  von  Imhoff  were 

thought  worthy  to  contribute  to  Schiller's  ‘  Musenalmanach.’  But 
the  letters  or  memoirs  or  diaries  from  the  pen  of  women  of  this 
period  are  still  more  worthy  of  notice,  revealing  to  us,  as  they  do, 
the  level  of  feminine  conversation  at  that  time.  Bettina  von  Arnim 
surrounds  all  objects  with  her  fairy-like  fancy,  and  transfers  us  from 
reality  into  a  world  of  poetry,  where  truth  and  fiction  are  indis- 
tinguishably  merged  in  each  other.  Rachel  Levin,  later  on  Madame 
Varnhagen,  parades  her  extravagant  wit  somewhat  too  ostentatiously, 
combining,  after  the  true  manner  of  the  humorist,  things  most 
remote  from  each  other,  and  affecting  a  kind  of  prophetic  insight. 
Henriette  Herz,  on  the  contrary,  spreads  a  serene  purity  around 
her,  and  reminds  us  more  than  any  other  of  the  type  of  woman 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science . 


a33 


which  Lessing  favoured.  Caroline  Schelling  ranks  first  among  all 
the  literary  women  of  the  time  ;  her  graceful  chatty  letters  are  full 
of  good  sense  and  imagination,  of  refined  malice  and  charming 
raillery,  and  their  clear  yet  thoughtful  descriptions,  their  charming 
language,  and  their  hidden  poetry  raise  them  to  the  level  of  true 
works  of  art. 

Rachel  Levin,  Henriette  Herz,  Caroline  Schelling,  and  other 
women  of  the  same  stamp,  ruled  society  in  Berlin  and  Jena,  which 
were  the  centres  of  the  rising  literature.  Their  circle  of  friends 
included  the  scientific  men  and  poets,  who  were  about  twenty  or 
thirty  years  younger  than  Goethe,  who  from  the  first  were  under  his 
influence,  and  continued  to  work  on  the  foundation  which  he  had 
laid.  They  strove  to  give  to  their  works  an  artistic  value,  but  they 
also  allowed  themselves  to  be  led  astray  into  adopting  an  oracular 
tone,  transferring  the  pleasing  parodoxes  of  conversation  to  the  realm 
of  science,  and  substituting  a  happy  fancy  or  a  telling  expression 
for  the  solution  of  the  problem  itself. 

Such  a  method  was  chiefly  prejudicial  to  philosophy  and  less 
directly  to  natural  science.  Philosophers  like  Lambert 
and  Kant  were  indeed  true  successors  of  Leibniz7in 
that  they  had  acquired  a  complete  training  in  mathematics  and 
physical  science,  and  had  themselves  rendered  services  to  the 
advancement  of  the  exact  sciences.  But  Kant’s  disciples  could 
not  boast  of  any  such  training.  The  master’s  philosophy  thus 
became  a  mere  fashion,  chiefly  rife  in  the  University  of  Jena,  and 
having  the  Jena  Literary  Journal  for  its  newspaper  organ.  In  the 
hands  of  these  apostles  Kant’s  teaching  was  transformed ;  his 
theory  of  knowledge  and  the  critical  side  of  his  philosophy 
generally  were  neglected,  and  his  warning  against  all  attempts 
to  know  the  unknowable  was  disregarded.  A  system  was  elabo¬ 
rated  which  could  be  easily  taught,  and  which  might 
serve  in  need  as  a  substitute  for  religion.  Among 
these  neo-Kantians,  Fichte,  Schelling  and  Hegel 
were  the  most  remarkable.  All  these  three  laboured 
at  first  in  Jena.  Fichte  shared  Kant’s  stern  morality, 
and  despised  the  sensuous  world  to  such  a  degree  as  to  deny 
it  all  reality.  His  bold  idealism  wished  to  derive  the  whole 


Philosophy. 


Followers 
of  Kant, 
Fichte, 
Schelling 
and  Hegel. 


*34 


Romanticism . 


[Ch.  XIII. 


world  from  reason,  and  really  approximated  more  and  more  to 
the  pantheism  of  Spinoza.  Spinoza  became,  about  the  middle  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  the  leading  spirit  of  German  philosophy. 
Schelling  went  from  Fichte  to  Spinoza,  and  from  Spinoza  even 
back  to  Tacob  Bohme.  Like  the  older  German  Spinozists,  such 
as  Herder  and  Goethe,  he  was  inspired  by  an  intense  enthu¬ 
siasm  for  nature  conceived  of  as  an  organic  whole.  Hegel  started 
from  Schelling,  but  worked  out  a  system  at  once  more  consistent 
and  more  comprehensive  than  his ;  a  system  which  embraced  in  its 
compass  not  only  nature  but  all  spiritual  life,  and  sought  to  enrich 
and  strengthen  all  the  sciences  by  reconstructing  them  a  priori  out 
of  pure  thought. 

Schelling’s  an  1  Hegel’s  writings  produced  a  tremendous  effect. 
Scideier-  Schleiermacher,  on  the  other  hand,  one  of  the  most 
macher.  powerful  and  learned  minds  that  Germany  has  ever  pro¬ 

duced,  and  whose  influence  among  theologians  was  quite  unequalled, 
was  not  duly  honoured  as  a  philosopher  till  long  after  his  death. 
Schopen-  Schopenhauer  remained  unnoticed  for  many  decades, 
hauer.  though  as  a  stylist  he  stood  highest  among  the  German 
philosophers.  While  Schelling’s  language,  at  its  best,  shows  a  graceful 
obscurity,  and  Hegel’s  is  purely  barbarous,  Schopenhauer  was  a  true 
master  of  speech.  At  the  same  time  he  was  a  man  of  really  deep  and 
original  thought,  who  stood  in  much  closer  relation  to  Kant  than 
other  writers,  and  successfully  developed  the  Kantian  philosophy  in 
certain  directions.  Herbart,  a  calm  methodical  thinker,  obtained 
only  late  in  life  a  limited  recognition  of  his  merits.  All  other 
thinkers  were  eclipsed  by  Schelling  and  Hegel,  whose  daring 
idealism  most  appealed  to  the  age,  and  led  natural  science  astray. 

As  early  as  the  eighteenth  century  science  had  suffered  from 
Effect  of  Sowing  power  of  poetic  imagination.  Goethe,  in 

philosophy  despising  mere  analysis  and  mathematical  calculation, 
and  poetry  Was  only  realising  and  strengthening  the  predominant 
on  science.  tencjency  Gf  age>  Towards  the  end  of  the  last 

century,  mathematics,  physics  and  chemistry  were  almost  at  a 
standstill  in  Germany.  The  few  men  who  distinguished  them¬ 
selves  in  these  sciences  stood  quite  alone.  The  genius  of  Gai-tss, 
who  by  his  ‘  Disquisitiones  Arithmeticae  ’  proved  himself  the 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science . 


235 


connecting  link  between  an  earlier  and  a  later  period  of  exact 
science,  was  but  slowly  appreciated  in  the  province  of  mathematics. 
Men’s  excited  imagination  scorned  colourless  abstractions,  and 
demanded  glowing  life  in  everything.  Nature’s  secrets  were  now 
no  longer  to  be  wrung  from  her  by  the  forcible  method  of  experi¬ 
ments.  Even  in  anatomy  and  physiology  no  one  comparable  to 
Albrecht  von  Haller  arose  for  some  time  in  Germany.  But  the 
starry  heaven  never  lost  its  charms  for  these  enthusiasts,  and  the 
teleological  observation  of  the  minute  details  in  nature  led  to  the 
most  glorious  botanical  discoveries.  The  sensuous  perception, 
which  had  been  quickened  and  trained  by  the  contemplation  of  the 
most  sublime  works  of  art,  proved  of  great  use  in  mineralogy.  To 
distinguish  and  establish  the  characters  of  nations  and  countries 
was  a  poetical  as  much  as  a  geographical  task,  and  the  thorough 
scholarly  habits  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  delight  in  amassing 
vast  and  universal  knowledge,  the  careful  accumulation  of  facts, 
furnished  valuable  material  for  scientific  generalization,  either  in 
statistics,  zoology,  or  geography. 

In  the  first  decades  of  this  century  it  seemed  as  if  the  true 
scientific  attitude  wras  in  jeopardy  in  Germany.  Men’s  imagination, 
influenced  by  art,  impatiently  demanded  of  science  a  complete 
whole  with  no  gaps  in  it,  and  metaphysics  were  ready  to  con¬ 
struct  such  a  whole.  Philosophers  dreamed  of  an  in-  Exact 
tuitive  method,  which  should  easily  solve  the  problems  methods 
that  baffled  patient  investigation.  Most  provinces  of  discredited, 
research  in  natural  science  were  invaded  by  those  pernicious 
metaphysical  theories  which  have  become  so  notorious  under 
the  name  of  ‘  Naturphilosophie.’  The  capacity  for  .Natural 
observing  in  an  unprejudiced  manner  and  for  rightly  philosophy,’ 

estimating  the  value  of  an  experiment  diminished  to  circa  1800- 

1820 

an  alarming  degree,  while  systems  hastily  and  care¬ 
lessly  evolved  found  a  willing  acceptance  even  in  the  domain  of 
practical  medicine.  The  believers  in  animal  magnetism  entered 
into  alliance  with  the  believers  in  ghosts  and  in  other  ‘occult 
powers  of  nature/  A  few  romantic  and  ardent  spirits  sought  the 
cause  of  disease  in  the  sinful  soul,  and  recommended  the  expul¬ 
sion  of  the  devil  as  the  most  effectual  medicine. 


236 


Romanticism . 


[Ch.  xiil 


But  in  spite  of  all  this,  ‘Natural  Philosophy'  did  really  strengthen 
the  general  interest  for  natural  science,  and  extend  German 
national  culture  in  this  direction.  By  promising  to  reveal  the 
secrets  of  the  universe,  it  attracted  many  intellectual  young  men 
who,  when  they  did  not  find  their  hopes  fulfilled,  sought  for  sounder 
knowledge  in  other  paths,  and  eventually  rivalled  foreigners,  be¬ 
cause  in  their  modest  devotion  to  science  they  were  content  with 
firmly  establishing  some  few  facts  instead  of  grasping  at  the  whole 
of  knowledge. 

The  reaction  _ao-^ir)g;t  *  NatnrAk-Philosophy’  began  about  1820, 

simultaneously  with  a  great  stirring  of  new  life  in  all  the 

Reaction  .  _  .  „  ,  ,  . 

against  provinces  01  exact  science.  Germany  suddenly  pro- 

Natural  duced  a  whole  series  of  mathematicians,  scientists 
Philosophy,  an(j  doctors  of  the  first  order,  and  Germans  now 
drca  .  tpe  }ead  in  many  departments  where  a  short 

time  ago  they  had  been  mere  learners. 

Geography  alone  had  remained  untouched  by  the  pernicious 
influences  of  Natural  Philosophy,  and  Alexander  von 
Geography.  jjumb0ldt,  the  most  brilliant  representative~~omiis 
science,  ihrew'the^whole  weight  of  his  influence  into  the  scale 
against  the  dreams  of  metaphysics.  Geography  rose  together 
with  the  rise  of  German  poetry,  but  did  not  sink  with  its  decline. 
Active  spirits  explored  distant  regions  of  the  earth  with  the  same 
joy  of  discovery  with  which  poets  penetrated  into  the  world  of 
the  soul.  Engelbert  Kampfer  reported  about  Japan. 
German  explorers,  from  Ivlesserschmidt,  Gmelin  and 
Pallas  down  to  Alexander  von  Humboldt,  Ehrenberg,  Rose  and 
their  successors,  contributed  to  the  scientific  knowledge  of  Russian 
Asia.  Carsten  Niebuhr  made  us  more  intimately  acquainted  with 
Arabia,  Babylonia,  and  Persia.  Hornemann  penetrated  into  the 
interior  of  Africa.  The  two  Forsters,  father  and  son,  accompanied 
James  Cook  on  his  second  journey  round  the  world.  In  1799 
Alexander  von  Humboldt  went  on  his  own  responsibility  to 
America,  and  his  example  was  followed  by  many  Germans  in 
this  century.  German  explorers  were  the  first  to  rise  above  the 
level  of  isolated  geographical  facts,  to  geographical  comparisons 
and  generalisations.  The  comparative  method,  of  which  we 


Explorers. 


Science. 


Ch.  XIII.] 


237 


only  occasionally  find  traces  in  Gmelin  and  Pallas,  became  in 
Reinhold  Forster  the  pervading  tendency.  His  son  The 
Georg  adopted  the  same  method  and  handed  it  on  comparative 
to  his  friend  Alexander  von  Plumboldt,  who  in  his  method, 
turn  exercised  a  decisive  influence  on  Karl  Ritter.  The  com¬ 
parative  science  of  the  earth,  including  both  comprehensive 
physical  generalisation,  and  investigation  of  the  connection  be¬ 
tween  the  earth  and  human  life,  between  geography  and  history, 
is  a  creation  of  German  origin. 

Georg  Forster,  who  left  Mainz  in  order  to  take  an  active  part 
in  the  French  Revolution,  and  who  died  in  misery  in  Paris,  was 
endowed  with  a  rare  versatility  of  mind  and  readiness  of  pen. 
His  powers  of  observation  and  reflection  were  quite  marvellous. 
He  first  practised  the  art  of  description  on  nature, 

Georg 

but  afterwards  extended  it  to  buildings  and  pictures,  Forster’s 
to  the  aspect  of  towns  and  of  public  life.  H  is  ‘  Ansichten 

‘  Views  on  the  Lower  Rhine/  the  memorial  of  a  short  vom  Hieder- 

rhein  ' 

journey  taken  in  company  with  Alexander  von  Hum¬ 
boldt  in  the  year  1790,  bear  eloquent  testimony  to  his  talent  in 
this  direction. 

Alexander  von  Humboldt  was  -superior  to  Georg  Forster  in 
universal  learning,  in  clear  system  and  method,  and  in  activity  as 
an  explorer  and  organizer.  Humboldt  added  an  in-  Alexander 
credible  number  of  new  facts  to  science,  and  used  von 
them  all  for  one  end — the  comprehensive  study  of  the  Humboldt, 
earth.  Comparison  was  the  very  soul  of  his  method.  1769  1859‘ 
He  did  not  entirely  confine  himself  to  physical  geography ;  his 
descriptions  of  countries  from  the  standpoint  of  political  economy 
are  models  of  what  such  writings  should  be,  and  his  interest  in 
America  led  him  to  make  historical  investigations  about  Columbus. 
Nor  were  aesthetic  interests  quite  neglected  by  him ;  Georg 
Forster’s  descriptions  of  the  tropical  world  had  fired  his  imagina¬ 
tion  and  awakened  his  longing,  and  after  he  had  His 
himself  seen  and  enjoyed  its  wonders,  he  rivalled  ‘Ansichten 
Bernardin  de  St.  Pierre  in  his  glowing  pictures, 

‘Views  of  Nature,’  as  he  called  them.  Plis  style,  rich 
in  epithets  and  introducing  many  technical  names,  does  not  attain 


der 

Natur.’ 


238 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


to  Goethe’s  graphic  power,  but  it  became  the  model  for  most 
German  writers  of  travels.  Here,  too,  Humboldt  did  not  content 
himself  with  the  mere  picture  of  things,  but  penetrated  beneath 
them  to  the  underlying  law. 

Alexander  von  Humboldt  was  not  at  all,  or  only  quite  transi¬ 
torily,  affected  by  the  Natural  Philosophy  movement.  The  my¬ 
thical  idea  of  a  vital  force,  which  he  glorified  in  almost  poetic 
language,  was  at  that  time  held  by  many  investigators,  who  were 
far  from  being  natural  philosophers.  But  he  too,  like  Schelling, 
Oken  or  Hegel  strove  to  represent  natural  phenomena  as  a 
complete  whole.  Buffon  and  Herder  had  already  exhibited  the 
relations  in  which  the  earth  stands  to  the  universe.  Georg  Forster 
conceived  a  similar  plan  and  Humboldt  carried  it  out.  In  his  cele¬ 
brated  Berlin  lectures,  given  in  the  winter  of  1827-28,  and  which 
His  form  the  foundation  of  his  £  Kosmos,’  he  drew  a  picture 
*  Cosmos.’  of  the  universe  which  nowhere  went  beyond  the  limits  of 
fact  or  justifiable  hypothesis ;  these  lectures  formed  the  truest  and 
most  effective  retort  to  the  rubbish  of  the  Natural  Philosophers. 

In  the  same  large  and  comprehensive  spirit  in  which  Alexander 
von  Humboldt  investigated  the  nature  of  the  earth,  his  brother 
Wilhelm  sought  to  fathom  the  nature  of  man.  Both  brothers 
moved  in  the  highest  ranks  of  society.  Wilhelm  was  repeatedly 
■Wilhelm  von  minister  and  ambassador ;  Alexander  was  repeatedly 
Humboldt,  entrusted  with  diplomatic  missions,  and  was  on  inti- 
1767-1835.  mate  terms  with  two  Prussian  kings.  Both  were 
personally  attached  to  Goethe,  and  Wilhelm  was  besides  a  devoted 
friend  of  Schiller.  When  the  friendship  between  the  two  great 
poets  was  formed,  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt  was  living  in  Jena,  and 
he  no  doubt  did  his  best  to  bring  Schiller  and  Goethe  closer  to 
,T.  each  other.  ‘  Hermann  and  Dorothea’  furnished  him 

‘  Aesthe-  with  the  text  for  his  ‘  ^Esthetic  Essays/  in  which 

tische  he  preached  Goethe’s  theory  of  the  epic,  and  also  did 
Versuche.  much  to  acquaint  people  with  the  poet’s  real  cha-  > 
racter.  A  criticism  of  Schiller,  which  he  wrote  a  quarter  of  a 
century  after  Schiller’s  death,  was  equally  successful  in  revealing  to 
the  world  the  deepest  nature  of  his  great  friend.  Like  Schiller  and 
Goethe,  he  found  ideal  humanity  in  the  Greek  race.  He  declared 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science. 


239 


that  in  the  most  solemn  and  the  most  cheerful  moments,  in 
the  happiest  and  saddest  events  of  life,  and  even  in  His  love  of 
the  hour  of  death,  a  few  lines  of  Homer,  though  the  classics, 
they  were  only  those  cataloguing  the  Greek  ships,  would  make 
him  feel  the  divine  element  in  human  nature  more  than  any  other 
literary  work.  But  his  studies  of  the  Greek  and  other  literatures, 
his  careful  estimates  of  modern  German  poets,  his  investigation 
of  the  contrasts  of  sex  in  humanity  and  in  nature,  his  study  of 
the  peculiarities  of  the  French  stage  in  Paris,  his  visit  to  the 
Spanish  hermits  of  Montserrat — all  these  labours  were  only  ad¬ 
juncts  to  a  comprehensive  science  of  man ;  and  the  study  of 
language,  indispensable  for  this  purpose,  ended  by  absorbing  his 
whole  interest.  He  pursued  this  study  with  the  catholic  sympathy 
characteristic  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  sought  out  the  various 
types  of  grammatical  construction,  from  the  admired  forms  of 
Greek  and  Sanskrit  literature  to  the  American,  Malay,  His  study  of 
and  Polynesian  idioms.  His  posthumous  work  on  language. 
‘The  Kawi  language  in  the  island  of  Java,’  and  especially  the  in¬ 
troduction  ‘  On  the  variety  of  construction  in  language,  and  its 
influence  on  the  intellectual  development  of  the  human  race,’  is 
looked  upon  as  his  scientific  masterpiece. 

He  retired,  when  still  young,  from  official  life,  in  order  to  devote 
himself  to  study.  In  an  essay  written  in  1^791,  and  referring  to  the 
new  French  constitution,  he  protested  against  the  attempt  to  build 
up  a  state-fabric  according  to  mere  principles  of  reason.  His  views  on 
In  his  paper,  entitled  ‘  An  endeavour  to  determine  the  the  functions 
limits  of  the  functions  of  the  State,’  he  protested  against  of  the  state- 
the  all-powerful  bureaucracy  of  the  preceding  century,  and  limited 
the  interference  of  the  State  to  securing  its  citizens  against  inward 
and  outward  enemies.  Public  education  and  all  matters  of  religion 
seemed  to  him  to  lie  outside  the  sphere  of  the  State’s  functions. 
Though  in  this  he  rather  overshot  the  mark,  yet  his  opposition  to 
the  spirit  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  eminently  practical  and 
opportune.  The  historical  and  conservative  views  of  Tustus  Moser 
now  first  attained  real  power.  Statesmen  like  Baron  von  Stein 
sought  to  repel  the  encroachments  of  the  bureaucracy,  and  to  increase 
the  participation  of  the  citizens  in  public  affairs.  But  Humboldt 


240 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


himself  could  not  retain  that  contemplative  leisure  in  which  he  found 
his  happiness.  The  needs  of  his  Fatherland  forced  him  into 
political  activity,  and  he,  who  had  been  the  enemy  of  all  State- 
directed  education,  was  compelled  in  January  1809  to  assume  the 
direction  of  the  education  department  in  the  Prussian  government. 
His  splendid  administration,  which  lasted  a  year  and  a  half,  formed 
the  culminating  point  of  his  public  activity,  and  was  a  brilliant  era 
in  the  history  of  German  education  generally.  ^ 

‘  The  State  must  replace  by  intellectual  force  what  it  has  lost  in 
physical  force,’  said  King  Frederick  William  III  on  the  10th  of 
August,  1807,  in  proposing  the  foundation  of  anew  university;  and 
Queen  Louise  remarked  to  a  distinguished  official :  ‘  Frederick  II 
conquered  provinces  for  Germany;  the  present  king  will  make  con¬ 
quests  for  Germany  in  the  intellectual  kingdom.’  No  Prussian 
official  did  more  to  fulfil  these  words  than  Wilhelm  von 
Humboldt.  He  secured  the  foundation  of  the  Univer- 

boldt  as 

Prussian  sityof  Berlin  underthe  most  difficult  circumstances,  and 
Minister  of  in  so  doing  also  gave  a  new  lease  of  life  to  the  Berlin 
“n,  Academy  of  Sciences.  The  Prussian  gymnasia  had 
been  progressing  satisfactorily  since  the  time  of  Frederick 
the  Great,  and  with  a  Hellenist  like  Humboldt  at  the  head  of 
educational  matters,  classical  studies  would  naturally  receive  still 
greater  attention.  But  Humboldt  also  favoured  the  increased  wish 
for  physical  development  and  exercise  by  introducing  gymnastics 
into  the  school  curriculum.  At  the  same  time  he  took  an  interest  in 
the  cultivation  of  music  in  schools,  and  directed  elementary  instruc¬ 
tion  into  new  paths. 

We  have  noticed  how  in  Basedow’s  mind  the  principles  laid 
down  by  Rousseau  with  regard  to  a  natural  education  were 
combined  with  the  demands  of  the  Illuminati ;  the  same  views 
operated  in  Pestalozzi,  who  based  the  earliest  instruction  on  sen¬ 
suous  perception,  at  the  same  time  assigning  more  importance 
to  religion  and  family  influences  in  education  than  Rousseau  had 
done.  From  the  beginning  of  the  century  his  method  of  instruc¬ 
tion  spread  more  and  more,  and  when,  after  the  humiliation  of 
Prussia,  a  better  education  for  the  coming  generation  seemed  the 
highest  immediate  duty  and  the  only  present  source  of  hope,  Pesta- 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science. 


241 


lozzi’s  method,  recommended  by  Fichte  and  taken  up  by  Hum¬ 
boldt,  attained  predominant  influence  in  the  elementary  schools  of 
Germany. 

In  the  autumn  of  1810,  when  Humboldt  had  already  resigned 
office,  the  University  of  Berlin  was  opened,  and  the  opening  of 
Prussian  capital  became  henceforth  the  chief  centre  of  the  Univer- 
intellectual  life  in  Germany  and  the  scene  of  the  sity  of  Berlin, 
greatest  advancement  in  science.  It  was  chiefly  at  1810- 
Berlin  that  after  1820  the  representatives  of  a  new  and  exact  school 
of  natural  science  were  gathered  together.  From  the  Men  f 
very  beginning  Berlin  possessed  a  few  of  the  chiefs  of  science  and 
that  new  philosophical  and  scientific  movement  which  letters  in 
had  sprung  up  in  the  train  of  German  poetry.  Fichte  Berlin* 
was  the  second  rector  of  the  University,  and  Hegel  settled  in  Berlin 
and  founded  an  influential  school  of  philosophy.  The  University 
and  the  Academy  counted  among  their  members  at  different  times 
theologians  like  Schleiermacher.  Marheinecke,  De  Wette  and 
Neander,  jurists  like  Savignyand  Eichhorn,  historians  like  Niebuhr, 
Riihs,  Wilken,  Friedrich  von  Raumer,  Pertz  and  Ranke,  philologists 
like  Bopp  and  Pott,  classical  scholars  like  Friedrich  August  Wolf, 
Bockh,  Immanuel  Bekker,  Lachmann  and  the  brothers  Grimm. 

The  development  of  religious  life  in  the  nineteenth  century  was 
directly  opposed  to  the  tendencies  of  the  eighteenth  German 
century.  The  revolt  against  the  school  of  enlighten-  theology  in 
ment,  which  hadbeenbegun  by  Herder  in  1774,  became  thel9th 
more  and  more  marked,  till  Schleiermacher’s  ‘Addresses  century- 
on  Religion’  in  1799  formed  the  turning-point  of  the  movement  in 
Germany.  In  Schleiermacher,  as  in  young  Goethe,  Schleierma- 
Moravian  and  Pantheistic  elements  were  mingled.  He  ^  ® 

described  the  union  of  the  soul  with  God  in  the  poetic  die  Religion’ 
language  of  a  mystic,  and  he  did  homage  at  the  same  1799. 
time  to  the  spirit  of  the  ‘  holy,  rejected  Spinoza.’  He  transferred 
religion  into  the  sphere  of  feeling,  and  avoided  the  name  of  God, 
preferring  to  replace  it  by  World  or  Universe.  He  addressed  him¬ 
self  especially  to  the  cultured  among  the  despisers  of  religion,  and 
sought  to  convince  the  enlightened  Berlinese  that  religion  was  an 
essential  element  of  intellectual  life.  When  he  printed  the  third  edition 


VOL.  11. 


R 


242 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


of  these  addresses  twenty-two  years  later,  it  seemed  to  him  more 
necessary  to  direct  his  words  of  exhortation  to  canting  Christians  and 
slaves  of  the  letter,  to  those  who  ignorantly  and  uncharitably  gave  their 
brethren  over  to  damnation,  to  the  superstitious  and  over-credulous 
among  the  educated  classes;  so  great  was  the  revolution  which 
had  accomplished  itself  in  the  religious  life  of  Germany  during  that 
period.  Germany’s  humiliation,  struggle  and  liberation  revived 
piety  in  her  midst.  Even  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt  took  an  interest 
in  the  rise  of  the  religious  spirit.  Contemporary  with  and  after 
him,  Ludwig  Nicolovius,  who  had  married  Goethe’s  niece,  made  his 
influence  felt  as  Prussian  minister  of  education  and  public  worship. 
He  was  personally  intimate  withHamann  and  Fritz  Jacobi,  and  shared 
their  religious  views.  Schleiermacher’s  sermons  kindled  a  glow  of 
piety  in  many  hearts.  In  his  religious  utterances  as  in  his  scientific 
ethics,  he  sought  to  appeal  to  all  the  various  sides  of  human  life. 
In  his  most  complete  work,  on  ‘  Dogma  ’  (Glaubenslehre),  he 
His  sought  to  bring  the  fundamental  views  of  his  ‘Addresses 

* Glaubens-  on  Religion’  into  closer  harmony  with  the  traditional 
lehre.  Christian  dogmas,  to  save  as  many  as  possible  of  these 
by  transforming  their  meaning,  and  yet  to  leave  everywhere  free 
scope  for  scientific  investigation.  On  the  occasion  of  the  three- 
hundredth  anniversary  of  the  Reformation,  King  Frederick  William 
III,  consistently  with  the  old  policy  of  his  house,  actually  effected  a 
union  between  the  two  Protestant  confessions,  a  measure  which  had 
often  been  talked  of  before.  Contemporaneously,  however,  intoler¬ 
ance  again  raised  its  head,  and  orthodoxy  persecuted  all  liberal 
tendencies  as  heresy.  Catholicism  acquired  new  strength  in  the 
nineteenth  century ;  the  Jesuit  order  was  re-established  in  1814,  and 
Protestantism  and  Catholicism  attacked  each  other  afresh,  though 
only  with  the  pen. 

Metaphysicians  intervened  in  vain  in  this  old  quarrel.  In  the 
intellectual  as  in  the  natural  sciences  they  could  create  nothing  per¬ 
manent,  but  only  supplied  general  suggestions  which  did  great  harm 
in  particular  cases.  For  several  decades  metaphysic  exercised  a 
baneful  dominion  over  aesthetic  and  psychology,  inasmuch  as  it  re¬ 
placed  genuine  observation  and  investigation  by  mere  theory. 
But  the  philological  and  historical  schools  were  already  arrayed  in 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science . 


243 


determined  opposition  to  metaphysic,  and  their  influence  in  this 
respect  reacted  on  theology. 

In  spite  of  single  errors,  history  and  philology  did  make  some 
important  advances  at  this  time.  The  classical  ten¬ 
dency  of  German  poetry  was  as  useful  to  classical  as 
the  romantic  tendency  was  to  national  philology ;  and 
poetry  in  its  turn  derived  benefi;  from  philological 
studies.  Many  hidden  achievements  of  national  and 
foreign  literature  were  now  brought  to  light.  In  the  arrangement 
of  literary  material,  in  collecting  and  publishing,  the  Germans 
showed  themselves  superior  to  all  other  nations,  and  the  improved 
methods  of  treating  such  material  have  mostly  proceeded  from 


Advances  in 
historical 
and 

philological 

criticism. 


them. 

In  the  intellectual,  as  in  the  natural  sciences,  a  strong  critical 
spirit  now  prevailed.  The  students  of  the  eighteenth  century  made 
short  work  both  in  ecclesiastical  and  in  profane  history  with  any¬ 
thing  which  seemed  in  contradiction  to  the  recognised  nature 
of  things.  They  everywhere  scented  untruth  and  deception,  and 
sometimes  went  too  far  in  their  scepticism,  thereby  evoking  in 
a  few  Romanticists  a  certain  tendency  to  over-credulity.  But  on  the 
whole  criticism  gained  steadily  in  boldness,  prudence  and  acumen. 
Wolf  doubted  the  unity  of  authorship  in  Homer,  and  Niebuhr  ques¬ 
tioned  the  truth  of  early  Roman  history.  Not  that 

.  .  .  Wolf, 

these  new  critics  imputed  conscious  deception  to  pri-  Niebuhr,  and 
mitive  writers ;  they  merely  made  allowance  for  the  Laehmann’s 
unconscious  distortion  of  legends,  for  the  lower  standard 
of  probability  in  early  times,  for  the  absence  of  contemporary  written 
records  and  the  errors  which  would  naturally  arise  therefrom,  for  the 
way  the  truth  might  have  been  obscured  to  satisfy  aesthetic  de¬ 
mands,  or  to  meet  party  exigencies  or  other  prejudices.  They 
conjectured,  as  the  basis  of  early  history,  the  existence  of  old 
popular  ballads,  like  those  which  Herder  had  first  brought  into 
general  notice.  They  allowed  for  the  same  mythologising  element 
in  primitive  poetry  which  Herder  had  so  strongly  insisted  on ;  and, 
again  following  Herder’s  example,  they  adopted  worthier,  nobler 
views  of  the  character  of  the  priests  among  ancient  nations. 
Their  criticism  was  not  merely  destructive,  but  also  constructive. 


R  2 


244  Romanticism.  [Ch.  xm. 

• 

Though  unity  of  authorship  was  denied  to  the  Iliad,  the  Odyssey 
and  the  Nibelungenlied,  and  these  great  epics  were  in  a  certain 
measure  destroyed  thereby,  yet  Lachmann  restored  them  again  by 
means  of  a  process  which  Herder  had  applied  to  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  i.  e.  by  assuming,  as  their  original  basis,  a  series  of 
ballads  of  less  extent,  but  of  greater  artistic  merit.  Lachmann 
also  discovered  in  the  Nibelungenlied  a  mythical  as  well  as  a 
hi  storical  element,  and  thus,  with  truly  constructive  criticism, 
recovered  a  lost  chapter  of  old  German  mythology.  It  is  true 
this  kind  of  criticism  was  sometimes  driven  too  far;  Niebuhr  was 
Mistaken  mistaken  in  deriving  the  traditional  history  of  early 
criticism.  Rome  entirely  from  lost  epic  poems.  The  brothers 
Grimm  and  others  were  mistaken  when  they  placed  the  origin  of 
popular  poetry  in  a  mysterious  obscurity,  and  drew  a  strong  con¬ 
trast  between  it  and  artificial  poetry.  Savigny  again  was  entirely 
mistaken  when  he  wrapped  the  origin  of  law  in  the  same  kind 
of  mysterious  obscurity,  and  when  he  refused  to  recognise  any 
original  creation  of  law  in  any  except  the  early  epochs  of  the 
history  of  nations. 

We  have  seen  how  geographers  sought  by  means  of  generalisa¬ 
tion  and  comparison  to  construct  a  history  of  the  earth  ;  similarly 
in  philology  and  its  kindred  sciences  the  historical  and  compara¬ 
tive  method,  which  had  hitherto  been  applied  with  but  slight  skill 

Science  or  success,  now  became  an  important  instrument  of 
of  language  research  and  criticism.  On  the  other  hand,  the  philo- 
and  history.  SOphy  0f  history,  which  depends  on  comparison  and 
generalisation,  lost  that  favour  which  it  had  enjoyed  for  a  time  in 
the  preceding  century.  The  method  of  historical  analogy  was  but 
little  applied ;  the  present  was  seldom  invoked  to  aid  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  past.  The  joy  in  the  newly  acquired  facts 
rather  blinded  men’s  eyes  to  the  necessity  of  explaining  them  if 
they  were  to  be  of  any  use.  But  in  the  science  of  philology  the 
comparison  of  the  grammatical  structure  of  languages  apparently 
most  remote  from  each  other  led  to  the  discovery  of  the  primitive 
Aryan  race,  and  at  once  suggested  similar  problems  in  other  groups 
of  languages,  problems  such  as  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt  undertook 
to  solve  for  the  Polynesian  and  Malay  races. 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science. 


245 


The  historical  method  was  applied  wherever  it  could  throw 
light.  Enquirers  were  not  so  eager  now  to  define  the  The 
essence  of  things  as  to  investigate  their  origin  and  historical 
growth.  History  now  took  the  place  of  a  priori  method- 
construction.  Historical  right  and  theoretical  right  were  clearly 
distinguished  from  one  another,  and  all  true  progress  in  science  was 
effected  by  means  of  adherence  to  the  same  historical  method. 
Savigny  traced  the  historical  development  of  Roman  law,  showing 
how  it  had  been  gradually  expanded  and  distorted.  Historians  in 
the  same  manner  traced  the  history  of  the  authorities  on  which 
they  had  to  rely,  and  thereby  learnt  to  estimate  the  true  value  to  be 
assigned  to  their  evidence.  Students  of  literature,  in  publishing 
texts,  first  followed  up  the  history  of  .  tradition,  before  undertaking 
to  establish  what  was  genuine.  It  was  through  historical  research 
that  the  grammarians  first  gained  an  insight  into  the  real  life  of 
language,  and  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt,  who  was  the  most  eloquent 
exponent  of  this  newly  acquired  knowledge,  really  but  confirmed 
what  Herder  had  surmised  as  early  as  his  Strassburg  period.  Even 
the  Hegelian  philosophy  owes  its  success  in  part  to  the  fact  that  it 
seemed  to  satisfy  in  the  shortest  way  the  desire  to  understand 
the  origin  and  growth  of  things,  and  also  skilfully  formulated  and 
generalised  a  number  of  superficial  reflections  about  the  historical 
process  of  development. 

The  studies  of  the  Romanticists  were  also  historical  in  so  far  as 
they  no  longer  cherished  a  bigoted  contempt  for  whole  epochs  in 
the  past ;  the  Middle  Ages  especially,  which  had  Mediseval- 
formerly  been  so  depreciated,  were  now  studied  with  ism. 
special  zeal  and  enthusiastically  admired.  In  religion,  art  and 
music  medievalism  became  fashionable,  while  theoretical  as  well  as 
practical  politics  fostered  the  historical-conservative  tendencies  of 
the  Romantic  school  as  a  useful  weapon  against  parliamentary 
constitutions,  and  in  defence  of  the  privileged  classes. 

In  ecclesiastical  and  secular  history- we  notice  the  same  objec¬ 
tive  and  impartial  attitude,  strangely  contrasting  with  the  tendencies 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  most  distinguished 
ecclesiastical  and  secular  historians  of  the  older  school 
were  to  be  found  at  the  University  of  Gottingen.  Such  were 


History. 


246 


Romanticism . 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Mosheim,  Putter,  Gatterer,  Schlozer,  Spittler,  Meiners,  Heeren  and 
Planck.  In  contrast  to  these  Justus  Moser  prepared  the  way  for 
the  juster  historical  views  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  at  the  same 
time  brought  historical  style  under  the  laws  of  epic  art.  The  Swiss 
historian  Iselin  belongs  to  the  older  school,  while  his  countryman 
Iselin  and  Johannes  Muller  represents  the  modern  tendencies  in 
Johannes  historical  writing.  While  Iselin  painted  in  bold  out- 
Muller.  lines  the  progress  of  humanity,  and  dwelt  much  on 

the  barbarism  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Muller,  in  an  artificial,  senten¬ 
tious  style  imitated  from  Tacitus,  drew  the  first  appreciative  picture 
of  mediaeval  life,  and  with  patriotic  enthusiasm  traced  the  history 
of  the  Swiss  confederation  down  to  the  fifteenth  century.  The 
twenty-four  books  of  his  Universal  History  formed  a  triumph  of 
the  objective  school  of  historical  study.  In  the  art  of  narration, 
Archenholz  Archenholz  and  Schiller  were  far  superior  to  Muller, 
and  Archenholz  described  the  Seven  Years’  War  from  the 
Schiller,  standpoint  of  an  enthusiastic  admirer  of  Frederick  the 
Great,  without  any  trouble  of  research  or  verification,  but  in  a  lively 
and  popular  style.  Schiller,  with  a  slight  amount  of  learning, 
showed  a  rare  talent  for  penetrating  criticism,  a  sure  discernment 
of  the  inner  relation  of  events,  and  a  power  of  graphic  description 
such  as  one  would  expect  from  so  great  a  dramatist.  In  historical 
writing,  as  in  other  departments  of  knowledge,  we  find  the  spirit 
of  the  eighteenth  century  continued  on  into  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth,  and  only  gradually  losing  its  power.  Rotteck  wrote  a 
universal  history  from  the  standpoint  of  a  vulgar  liberalism,  and 
achieved  a  great  success  among  the  general  reading  public.  But  it 
was  only  the  appreciative  objective  treatment  which  really  met  the 
demands  of  the  time  and  satisfied  more  critical  minds. 
Friedrich  Christoph  Schlogser,  a  stern  moral  censor 
and  strictly  bourgeois  in  his  manner  of  looking  at 
things,  succeeded  in  appreciating  the  greatness  of  the 
Middle  Ages  even  from  the  religious  side.  Wilken 
wrote  the  history  of  the  Crusades,  Friedrich  von  Raumer  the  history 
of  the  Hohenstaufen,  and  Harald  Stenzel  that  oT~the  Franconian 
emperors.  Johannes  Voigt  presented  Pope  Gregory  VII  in  a 
more  pleasing  light.  Neander  gave  himself  up  to  the  task  of 


Schlosser, 

Wilken, 

Stenzel, 

Voigt, 

Neander. 


•  Ch.  XIII.] 


Scrntce. 


247 


Ranke. 


delineating  the  individuality  of  such  men  as  Julian  the  Apostate, 
Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  Chrysostom,  and  Tertullian.  And  in  the 
third  decade  of  this  century  there  arose  in  Germany  a  truly  great 
and  universal  historian,  Leopold  Ranke,  a  critic  and 
narrator  of  the  first  order,  a  master  of  characterization, 
endowed  with  a  marvellous  power  of  sympathy,  and  possessing  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  politics  and  literature.  His  style  at  first 
resembled  that  of  Johannes  Muller,  but  was  always  more  graphic 
and  brilliant,  and  soon  became  thoroughly  individual. 

It  was  the  endeavour  of  the  eighteenth  century  to  discover  the 
peculiar  tendencies,  the  ‘genius ’of  nations.  Winckelmann  adhered 
faithfully  to  this  point  of  view  in  his  studies  of  antique  art,  and 
Christian  Gottlob  Heyne  later  on  transplanted  Winckelmann’s  ideas 
into  the  classical  teaching  of  the  Universities.  Herder  gathered 
together  all  the  different  phases  of  national  character  in  a  whole, 
not  even  omitting  language  in  his  observations  and  comparisons. 
In  the  nineteenth  century  this  class  of  studies  was  continued  by 
Wilhelm  von  Humboldt ;  and  his  ‘  Sketch  of  the  Greeks/  which  he 
sent  to  his  friend  Wolf,  furnished  the  latter  with  a  study  of 
basis  for  a  science  of  antiquity,  and  thereby  for  a  nationalities, 
new  view  of  philology  generally.  Philology  in  Humboldt’s  sense 
is  the  science  of  nationality ;  it  investigates  all  the  various 
phases  of  life  in  a  nation,  and  points  out  the  distinguishing 
peculiarity  in  each.  Humboldt’s  lofty  aims  in  the  pursuit  of  this 
method  have  not  yet  been  really  attained  in  the  study  of  any  nation, 
and  perhaps  are  unattainable  as  he  intended  them.  But  compre¬ 
hensive  research  into  all  the  aspects  of  national  life  became  now  an 
object  of  serious  study.  It  was  undertaken  with  regard  to  the 
Greeks  by  Welcker,  Bockh  and  others,  and  was  extended  from 
poetry,  art,  mythology  and  science  to  material  interests,  to  finance 
and  navigation,  weights  and  measures. 

But  their  own  nationality  as  well  as  the  Greek  now  forced  itself 
on  the  attention  of  German  scholars.  The  German 
nationality  and  its  distinguishing  features  was  the 
problem  which  Fichte  treated  in  his  ‘  Addresses,’  and 
which  also  occupied  Ernst  Moriz  Arndt  and  the  men  of  action. 
It  is  true  they  idealized  without  sufficient  investigation,  and  took 


Strong 

patriotic 

tendency. 


248 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII.  * 


the  existing  condition  of  things  for  permanent  truth;  but  the 
glorified  picture  of  the  nation  which  they  held  up  to  their  com¬ 
patriots  was  an  enormous  moral  force,  and  inspired  hope  and 
courage  in  times  of  need.  Cosmopolitanism  everywhere  retired, 
and  the  national  standpoint  asserted  itself  not  only  in  history,  but 
study  of  a^:0  poetics  and  political  economy.  Literary 

German  research  in  this  period  was  superior  to  historical ; 
literature.  the  study  of  German  literature  was  represented  by 
men  like  Jacob  Grimm  and  Georg  Gottfried  Gervinus,  whose 
‘  History  of  German  poetry  ’  began  to  appear  three  years  after 
Goethe’s  death  (1835),  and  formed,  so  to  speak,  the  epilogue  of 
the  modern  classical  period  of  German  poetry. 

Herder  gave  the  initiative  in  all  directions,  in  history,  philology 
Strong  an(l  literary  criticism.  He  furnished  many  utterances 
influence  of  on  German  mediaeval  poetry,  and  was  peculiarly 
Herder.  successful  in  discerning  the  really  great  minds  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  His  idea  of  Hellenism  influenced  Schiller. 
The  sceptre  of  aesthetic  criticism  passed  from  Gottsched  to 
Lessing,  from  Lessing  to  Herder,  and  from  him  to  the  brothers 
Schlegel.  The  combination  in  Herder  of  the  study  of  literary 
history  with  the  art  of  the  translator,  his  enthusiastic  appreciation 
of  other  writers,  which  sometimes  led  him  into  mere  slavish 
imitation,  all  this  lived  on  in  the  two  Schlegels,  while  the  general 
plan  which  they  laid  down  as  the  basis  of  literary  history  was 
derived  from  Schiller.  They  put  ‘ classical ’  and  ‘romantic’  in  the 
place  of  Schiller’s  contrast  of  ‘  naive  ’  and  ‘  sentimental  ’  poetry, 
and  they  counted  Goethe’s  ‘  Hermann  and  Dorothea,’  for  instance, 
as  belonging  to  the  classical  school  of  poetry. 

August  Wilhelm  Schlegel,  Friedrich  Schlegel,  Ludwig  Tieck, 
Friedrich  von  Hardenberg,  who  wrote  under  the  name  of  Novalis, 
The  older  Johann  Dietrich  Gries,  and  a  few  others,  form  the 
Romantic  inner  circle  of  the  so-called  older  Romantic  school, 
school.  They  were  friends  of  Fichte  and  Schleiermacher  at 
Berlin  and  Jena,  and  began  to  come  prominently  into  notice 
about  the  time  when  Schiller  and  Goethe  commenced  their  friend¬ 
ship,  and  when  Goethe  published  his  ‘Wilhelm  Meister’ (1795). 
They  attacked  the  Berlin  school  of  enlightenment,  and  satirised 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science. 


249 


the  shallow  society-literature,  as  Schiller  and  Goethe  did  in  the 
£  Xenien.’  But  they  went  too  far  in  their  hostility  towards  the 
eighteenth  century.  In  their  extreme  horror  of  the  fashionable  cry 
for  ‘  nature  ’  in  everything,  they  departed  altogether  from  nature 
and  reality  in  their  writings,  and  demanded,  in  accordance  with 
Fichte’s  views,  that  a  work  of  art  should  be  a  free  product  of  the 
inner  consciousness.  They  freed  imagination  from  all  restraints, 
repudiated  all  established  forms,  and  confused  the  various  kinds  of 
poetry.  They  set  up  the  finest  principles  of  objective  criticism, 
and  ruthlessly  disregarded  them  in  practice.  They  loudly  pro¬ 
claimed  the  praises  of  Goethe,  but  they  misunderstood  Wieland, 
depreciated  Lessing,  and  did  not  even  recognise  Schiller’s  genius. 
Nicolai,  Kotzebue  and  their  party,  the  representatives  of  the  school 
of  enlightenment,  did  not  take  these  attacks  in  silence.  Pas¬ 
quinades,  criticisms,  manifestos  and  satirical  dramas,  continuing  to 
a  certain  extent  the  warfare  of  the  ‘  Xenien,’  were  launched  by 
each  side  against  the  other.  But  the  political  events  of  1805  and 
1806,  the  defeats  of  Austria  and  Prussia,  put  an  end  to  all  literary 
feuds;  the  Romanticists,  like  Fichte,  returned  to  reality  and  national 
life,  and  the  two  Schlegels  now  gathered  their  forces  together  for 
important  achievements  in  the  province  of  literary  history.  In  the 
school  of  the  older  Romanticists  generally  the  history  of  literature 
and  the  art  of  translation  made  great  progress. 

Tieck  was  a  man  whose  views  and  education  were  essentially 

those  of  the  ‘  Storm  and  Stress  ’  period ;  he  was  an 

,  Tieck. 

enthusiastic  admirer  of  ‘  Gotz  ’  and  the  ;  Robbers,’  and 
he  himself  never  got  beyond  the  formless  literary  productions  of 
Goethe’s  youthful  companions.  He  had  early  become  acquainted 
with  the  German  popular  stories,  and  revived  them  under  various 
forms.  His  interest  in  Shakspeare  led  him  on  to  the  study  of 
the  English  and  German  drama  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries.  He  made  Siegfried’s  youth  the  subject  of  some  early 
romances;  he  translated  ‘  Don  Quixote ’  (1 799) ;  he  His 
produced  a  modern  version  of  old  German  Minne-  translations, 
songs  (1803),  and  published  the  love-memoirs  of  Ulrich  von 
Lichtenstein  (1812).  He  uttered,  so  to  speak,  the  manifesto  of 
Romanticism  in  the  following  lines : — 


250 


Romanticism . 


[Ch.  XIII. 


‘  Magical  moonlit-night, 

Holding  the  senses  fettered, 

Wonderful  fairy-world, 

Arise  in  thy  olden  glory.’ 

Wilhelm  Schlegel,  the  elder  of  the  two  brothers,  acquired  pure 
Wilhelm  poetic  form  through  his  personal  acquiintance  with 
Schlegel.  Biirger.  He  gradually  freed  himself  from  Burger’s 
travestying  method  of  translation,  and  rather  adopted  Herder’s 
principles,  uniting  the  most  careful  imitation  of  the  original  with  a 
truly  German  character,  with  fluency  of  language,  unity  of  style, 
and  pure  poetic  effect.  Wieland’s  translation  of  Shakspeare  had 
been  made  more  complete  and  accurate  by  Eschenburg,  but  a 
prose  version  of  Shakspeare  could  never  hope  to  find  general 
acceptance.  Wilhelm  Schlegel  was  the  first  to  apply  those  newly 
developed  forces  of  German  language  and  metrical  art,  which 
dated  from  the  appearance  of  Goethe’s  first  Iambic  plays,  to 
making  a  noble  German  version  of  the  great  English  dramatist. 

Between  1797  and  1801  he  translated  sixteen  of  Shakspeare’s 
plays,  and  in  1810  there  followed  yet  a  further  instalment.  Schlegel’s 
Shakspeare  certainly  surpassed  Voss’  Homer.  It  did  not  conceal 
the  wide  difference  between  creative  and  imitative  art,  but  it 
showed  the  close  kinship  between  one  perfect  work  and  another, 
His  and  for  this  reason  it  may  rank  directly  by  the  side  of 
Shakspeare  the  works  which  Goethe  and  Schiller  produced  in  the 
and  other  period  of  their  common  labours.  Wilhelm  Schlegel 
translations,  a]m0st  the  same  perfection  in  his  renderings 

of  Italian,  Spanish  and  Portuguese  poetry,  and  called  forth  many 
imitators  in  this  field,  such  as  Gries  for  Tasso,  Ariosto 
Translators.  Calderon,  Kannegiesser,  Streckfuss,  and  King 

John  of  Saxony  for  Dante,  WTitte  and  Soltau  for  Boccaccio  and 
Cervantes ;  at  the  same  time  many  writers  rivalled  each  other 
in  completing  the  translation  of  Shakspeare,  while  new  German 
versions  of  the  classics  were  continually  appearing.  These  trans¬ 
lators  did  not  all  proceed  according  to  Schlegel’s  principles ;  only 
a  few  hit  on  the  right  mean  between  faithfulness  to  the  original  and 
faithfulness  to  the  German  laws  of  1  inguage  and  form.  Wilhelm 
von  Humboldt’s  version  of  JEschylus*  ‘Agamemnon,’  and  Schleier- 
macher’s  ‘  Plato,’  for  instance,  possess  the  former  in  the  highest 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science. 


251 


degree,  but  are  often  deficient  in  the  latter.  Wilhelm  Schlegel’s  art 

of  translation  was  based  as  much  on  the  devoted  study  of  language 

as  on  independent  poetic  power,  as  much  on  wide  literary  interests 

as  on  the  highest  conceptions  of  German  poetry.  He  was  the 

critic  par  excellence  among  the  allies  of  the  Romantic  school.  His 

‘  Lectures  on  dramatic  art  and  literature/  which  ap-  His 

peared  from  1809  to  18 n,  show  him  from  his  best  ‘Vorles- 

side.  The  chief  place  is  here  rightly  assigned  to  the  ungen  uber 
iT-r-,1  i  ••  .  dramatische 

Greeks  and  the  Lnglish ;  but  patriotic  prejudice  Kunst  und 
blinded  him  in  his  criticism  of  the  French,  and  even  Litteratur’ 
led  him  to  condemn  Moliere.  (1809-1811). 

Friedrich  Schlegel  was  pre-eminently  the  theorist  of  the  older 
Romantic  school,  bold  and  paradoxical  to  the  point  of  Friedrich 
absurdity  and  bad  taste,  but  also  a  man  of  many-sided  Schlegel. 
interests,  who  exercised  a  strong  influence  over  other  minds.  In 
his  first  studies  of  Greek  poetrv,  he  took  Winckel-  TT.  ,  „  . 

mann  as  his  example,  while  he  was  in  part  also  Und  Weis- 
influenced  by  Humboldt’s  principles.  He  gave  a  new  beit  d3r 
impulse  to  the  study  of  mediaeval  art.  His  essay  Tndier’  1808> 
on  the  ‘  Language  and  wisdom  of  the  Indians/  which  appeared 
in  the  year  1808,  paved  the  way  for  Indian  studies  in  Germany, 
and  with  its  bold  but  suggestive  hypotheses  was  the  pioneer  for 
the  surer  conclusions  of  comparative  philology.  In  the  same  year, 
1808,  Friedrich  Schlegel  became  a  Roman  Catholic,  and  there  is 
clear  evidence  of  his  change  of  opinion  in  his  ‘  Lectures  His  Lectures 
on  the  history  of  old  and  modern  literature  ’  (1815),  on  German 
a  work  of  great  excellence  in  many  respects.  In  literature, 
these  lectures  Friedrich  Schlegel  only  gave  a  bare  outline  of  old 
German  poetry.  With  greater  power  and  enthusiasm  Wilhelm 
Schlegel  had  addressed  the  Berlin  public  on  the  same  subject  in 
the  winter  of  1803  to  1804.  He  compared  the  Nibel-  Revived 
ungenlied,  as  Bodmer’s  school  had  already  done,  with  interest  in 
the  Iliad.  He  called  it  a  miracle  of  nature  and  a  old  German 
sublime  work  of  art,  which  had  never  since  been  literature- 
equalled  in  German  poetry.  He  himself  thought  of  publishing  a 
new  edition  of  it,  and  Tieck  cherished  a  similar  plan.  Both  were 
anticipated  by  Friedrich  Heinrich  von  der  Hagen,  who  had  attended 


252 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Schlegel’s  lectures,  and  who  published  successively  four  editions 
F.H.  vonder  Nibelungenlied,  and  also  a  modernised  version 

Hagen  and  of  the  poem ;  but  his  labours  in  this  department  were 
Laehmann.  afterwards  eclipsed  by  Lachmann. 

In  the  winter  of  1807  to  1808  old  German  poetry  became  fashion¬ 
able  among  the  educated  classes  in  Berlin,  and  in  1808  a  new 
Later  generation  of  romantic  poets  who  from  the  first  directed 
Romantic  their  attention  chiefly  to  the  older  and  popular  German 
school.  literature,  gathered  round  a  small  and  short-lived  news¬ 
paper,  the  ‘  Zeitung  fur  Einsiedler’  (Journal  for  Hermits),  published 
in  Heidelberg.  This  band  of  poets  consisted  of  Achim  von  Arnim 
from  Berlin,  Joseph  Gorres  from  Coblenz,  Clemens  Brentano  from 
Frankfort,  the  brothers  Grimm  from  Hanau,  and  Ludwig  Uhland 
from  Tubingen.  Arnim,  the  editor  of  the  journal  above  mentioned, 
and  Brentano  were  at  that  time  living  in  Heidelberg ;  Gorres  too 
was  teaching  there  at  the  University,  which  was  springing  up  into 
new  life  and  vigour  under  the  government  of  the  Elector  of  Baden. 
The  other  authors  contributed  from  a  distance. 

Achim  von  Arnim  planned  a  comprehensive  revival  of  the  old 
and  the  popular  literature.  From  1806  Arnim  and  Brentano  pub- 
Arnim  and  lished  conjointly  a  collection  of  German  songs,  under 
Brentano,  tpe  pecupar  title  of  ‘  The  Boy’s  Wonder-Horn/  These 

f  Des  Kii^bcn  A  ~ 

Wunder-  songs  are  patriotic  in  character,  in  contrast  to  the 
horn.’  cosmopolitan  tone  of  Herder’s  people’s  songs.  Arnim 
revived  with  more  or  less  freedom  narratives  and  dramas  of  the 
fifteenth  to  the  seventeenth  century.  Brentano  revived  a  tale 
of  Jorg  Wickram,  and  in  his  light  jocose  treatise  on  the  *  Philis¬ 
tine  ’  he  declares  it  to  be  the  clearest  proof  of  Philistinism  not  to 
understand  and  admire  the  marvellous  inventive  genius  and  extra¬ 
ordinary  artistic  power  displayed  in  ‘  Schelmuffsky.’ 

In  1807  Gorres  wrote  a  work  on  *  The  German  people’s  books/ 
Gorres,  and  furnished  an  appreciative  survey  of  that  whole 
‘ 1)16  class  of  literature  which  was  sold  at  fairs,  and  which 
Volks-  is  still  esteemed  among  the  lower  ranks  of  the  nation, 
biicher.’  The  ‘  People’s  Books  ’  comprised  dream-books, 
medicine-books,  and  riddle-books,  weather-prophecies,  craftsmen’s 
proverbs,  fabulous  travels,  legends  and  romances  like  those  of 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science . 


253 


Jacob  and 
Wilhelm 
Grimm’s 
Kinder  und 
Hausmar- 
chen,’ 

‘  Deutsche 
Sagen,’ 

‘  Deutsches 
W  orter- 
buch.’ 


Genovefa,  Magelone,  Melusine,  the  Emperor  Octavian,  the  invulner¬ 
able  Siegfried,  Duke  Ernst,  Henry  the  Lion,  Eulenspiegel,  Doctor 
Faustus,  and  the  wandering  Jew. 

The  brothers  Grimm,  Jacob  and  Wilhelm  (the  former  born  in 
1785,  the  latter  in  1786),  frequently  appeared  before 
the  public  as  joint-authors.  In  1812  and  1815  they 
published  their  ‘Fairy-tales’  in  common,  in  1816 
the  ‘German  Legends/  and  from  1852  they  both 
laboured  in  producing  a  ‘German  Dictionary.’  From 
their  childhood  to  the  death  of  Wilhelm,  they 
lived  almost  continually  together.  Wilhelm  was  mar¬ 
ried,  Jacob  unmarried,  but  beloved  in  his  brother’s 
family  like  a  second  father.  Their  common  labours 
embraced  all  departments  of  German  philology  in  the 
wide  sense  given  to  it  by  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt.  The  power  of 
great  discovery  was  strongest  in  the  elder  brother,  the  power  of 
quiet  development  in  the  younger. 

Jacob  seemed  at  first  to  wish  to  attempt  a  history  of  German 
poetry  and  legends,  a  comprehensive  survey  of  poetic  material. 
But  in  his  ‘  German  Grammar,’  which  he  began  to  publish  in 
1819,  he  furnished  a  history  of  all  the  Teutonic  languages,  and  by 
his  method  as  well  as  by  his  discoveries  became  one  of  the 
founders  of  the  modern  science  of  language.  He 

tJ"  diCOl) 

felt,  as  no  one  had  felt  before,  the  natural  poetry  Grimm’s 

hidden  in  language.  In  1816  he  wrote  an  essay  on  ‘Deutsche 

the  poetry  in  law,  and  expanded  it  in  1828  into  the  Grammatik/ 
^  ‘  Deutsche 

work  entitled  ‘  Antiquities  of  German  Law.’  In  1835  Rechtsalter- 

he  published  his  ‘German  Mythology,’  in  which  he  thumer,’  and 

traced  the  vestiges  of  heathenism  in  the  older  poetry  ‘Deutsclie 

,  .  ,  .  .  ,  1  ,  Mythologies 

and  m  popular  superstition.  He  brought  to  light 

many  noble  customs  of  early  German  times,  and  enabled  men  to 

enter  more  thoroughly  into  the  spirit  and  style  of  the  old  Germanic 

epics.  He  made  a  wide  study  of  the  productions  of  popular 

poetry,  and  himself  translated  a  few  Servian  songs.  He  frequently 

rose  to  the  highest  level  of  general  observations,  full  of  natural 

philosophy  and  unadorned  wisdom.  Even  his  errors  are. attractive ; 

one  would  rather  believe  them  than  repudiate  them. 


\ 


254 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Wilhelm  Grimm  directed  his  researches  in  particular  to  the 
Wilhelm  German  hero-legends ;  he  translated  old  Danish 

Grimm’s  hero-songs,  ballads  and  fairy-tales,  published  many 

literary  monuments  of  German  poetry  and  language  from  the 

studios  •  • 

eighth  to  the  thirteenth  century,  and  did  the  chief 

work  in  the  collection  of  German  fairy-tales  made  by  him  and 
his  brother  Jacob.  He  knew  what  children  liked  to  hear,  and 
His  created  the  homogeneous  style  of  these  stories,  with- 

fairy-tales.  out  exactly  inventing  it ;  he  adopted  the  best,  most 
naive  and  most  charming  traits  in  the  oral  narratives  current 
among  the  people,  arranging  them  according  to  the  measure  of  his 
own  refined  taste.  He  accomplished  for  the  German  fairy-tales 
what  Arnitn,  Brentano,  Tieck  and  others  only  attempted  for  the 
popular  songs  and  romances.  He  gave  back  to  the  whole  nation 
those  innocent  children’s  stories  which  had  taken  refuge  with  the 
lower  classes,  and  produced  a  work  of  art  perfect  of  its  kind,  and 
which  found  favour  and  imitation  even  outside  Germany.  His 
*  Marchen  ’  made  him  rank  among  the  best  German  popular 
writers  and  children’s  authors,  such  as  Peter  Hebei,  Christoph 
Schmid  and  Ludwig  Aurbacher;  yet  at  the  same  time  he  always 
remained  a  scholar,  adhering  faithfully  to  his  authorities,  while  the 
other  writers  whom  we  have  mentioned  refashioned  with  poetic 
licence  Biblical  stories,  or  legends,  tales,  and  farces  of  the  older  litera¬ 
ture,  and  did  not  even  mind  introducing  inventions  of  their  own. 

Genuine  devotion  to  poetry  distinguishes  the  brothers  Grimm 
Characters  ^rom  many  other  scholars.  We  can  clearly  observe 
tics  of  the  in  them  how  the  high  excellence  of  German  poetry 
brothers  led  to  a  science  of  German  poetry.  Like  Goethe 
they  were  specially  attracted  by  the  idyll,  which 
educated  the  men  of  the  previous  century  to  appreciate  the  simple 
charms  of  natural  everyday  life.  They  were  animated  by  a 
pathetic  optimism,  and  they  possessed  that  sober  imagination 
which  delights  in  small  things  and  narrow  interests,  lingering 
over  them  with  strong  affection.  They  transferred  the  old 
philologists’  virtue  of  exactness  to  the  things  which  lay  im¬ 
mediately  around  them.  They  descended  to  the  most  insig¬ 
nificant  facts,  and  approached  a  nonsensical  sounding  nursery- 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science . 


255 


rhyme  as  seriously  as  though  it  might  contain  the  deepest 
revelations  of  primitive  times.  Their  £  meditation  on  the  in¬ 
significant,’  as  Wilhelm  Schlegel  mockingly  termed  it,  was  really 
the  basis  of  their  scientific  greatness  and  the  source  of  their  popu¬ 
larity.  They,  more  than  any  other  writers,  reaped  what  Herder  had 
sown,  and  of  the  whole  multitude  of  Romanticists,  none,  except 
Uhland,  was  so  dear  to  the  German  people  as  the  brothers  Grimm. 

Uhland’s  learned  works  became  known,  for  the  most  part,  only 
after  his  death.  He  was  born  in  April  1787,  and  study  of 
already  at  the  University  he  began  to  turn  his  at-  literature, 
tention  to  the  Nibelungenlied.  It  was  not  merely  as  Uhland  and 
a  scholar  that  he  approached  Old-German  poetry  ; 
it  inspired  him  in  his  own  poetic  creation,  and  early  determined 
his  taste.  His  poetic  talent  was  of  advantage  to  him  in  his 
literary  researches,  as,  for  instance,  when  in  his  ‘  Walther  von  der 
Vogelweide  ’  he  drew  the  first  complete  picture  of  an  old  German 
singer,  or  when,  in  the  spirit  of  Herder,  he  explained  the  northern 
myths  of  the  Thunder-God  as  being  originally  a  personifying 
poetry  of  nature.  He  soon  extended  his  studies  to  mediaeval  French, 
and  he  and  Wilhelm  Schlegel  were  the  founders  of  Romance  philo¬ 
logy  in  Germany.  What  he  did  for  the  old  French  epics  was  afterward 
done  by  Friedrich  Diez  for  the  poetry  and  life  of  the  Troubadours. 

With  Uhland  and  Diez  also  the  study  of  literature  went  hand  in 
hand  with  the  art  of  translation,  and  Karl  Simrock  Karl 
of  Bonn,  from  1827  on,  did  more  than  any  other  Simrock. 
man  to  render  Middle  High-German  poetry  accessible  to  the 
general  public  through  modern  German  versions.  Philological  and 
poetical  research  was  pushing  forward  in  all  directions.  Friedrich 
Schlegel  had  already  directed  his  attention  to  India,  and  his 
brother  Wilhelm  and  others  carried  on  his  work  in  this  direction. 
Joseph  von  Hammer,  continuing  what  Herder  had  begun,  made 
the  Germans  acquainted  with  Persian,  Arabic,  and 
Turkish  poetry ;  Friedrich  Riickert  followed  in  his 
steps  and  enjoyed  his  personal  direction,  but  he  also 
included  Indian,  Hebrew,  and  even  Chinese  literature, 
in  the  sphere  of  his  labours,  and  made  wonderful 
translations  from  all  of  them.  A  literary  conquest  seemed  to 


The 

Schlegels, 

Hammer, 

and 

Riickert. 


256 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Goethe’s 
sympathy 
■with  the 
tendencies 
of  this 
period. 


have  been  made  both  of  the  East  and  the  West,  and  the  most 
difficult  metrical  forms,  rhythms  and  rhymes  did  not  refuse  to 
adapt  themselves  to  a  language  which  a  hundred  years  before  this 
was  hardly  able  to  stammer  Alexandrines,  and  which  was  fain 
to  greet  a  Gottsched  as  a  welcome  law-giver. 

No  one  followed  all  these  efforts  with  greater  interest  than 
Goethe ;  he  stood  in  the  midst  of  the  whole  scientific 
movement  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  at  the  same 
time  retained  his  allegiance  to  the  school  of  Herder. 
He  was  certainly  not  altogether  free  from  the  tend¬ 
encies  of  the  school  of  natural  philosophy.  His 
theory  of  colours  was  influenced  by  those  tendencies, 
and  gave  them  further  encouragement.  His  theory  of  the  meta¬ 
morphosis  of  plants  now  first  began  to  find  general  recognition. 
Many  of  the  movements  then  stirring  in  Germany  and  elsewhere 
were  in  harmony  with  early  ideas  of  Goethe’s  to  which  he  had  not 
given  public  utterance.  The  brilliant  achievements  of  Alexander 
von  Humboldt  filled  him  with  sympathetic  admiration,  and  he 
repeatedly  extended  favour  and  tolerance  to  the  Romanticists. 
The  two  unsuccessful  dramatic  productions  of  the  brothers  Schlegel, 
the  ‘  Ion  ’  of  the  elder  brother  and  the  ‘  Aiarcos  ’  of  the  younger, 
were,  through  Goethe’s  recommendation,  performed  on  the  Weimar 
stage  even  in  the  lifetime  of  Schiller.  He  was  much  gratified  by  the 
dedication  of  the  ‘  Wunderhorn’  to  himself,  and  gave  his  full  approval 
to  the  work.  He  read  extracts  from  the  Nibelungenlied  in  his 
own  circle  of  friends.  In  his  Masque  entitled  ‘  Romantic  poetry/ 
produced  in  1810,  he  introduced  characters  drawn  from  old 
German  poetry.  He  showed  his  sympathy  with  the  Romanticist 
enthusiasm  for  old  German  stories  bv  publishing  at  this  time  the 
first  part  of  ‘  Faust/ — a  work  which  he  had  begun  in  early 
years  in  an  outburst  of  national  enthusiasm,  and  whose  appearance 
now  threw  into  the  shade  all  other  attempts  at  modernising  or 
reshaping  old  German  legends.  But  there  is  one  point  which 
caused  him  serious  anxiety.  He  could  not  bear  to  see  Mediaeval- 
ism  acquiring  ever  greater  power  not  only  in  historical  interests, 
but  in  art,  religion  and  1  fe.  The  faithful  Meyer  was  compelled, 
in  1807,  to  declare  war  in  the  name  of  the  joint-firm  of  the  Weimar 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Science . 


257 


friends  of  art  against  the  modern  German  school  of  religious 
patriotic  art,  and  against  all  canting  piety.  Goethe  himself  celebrated 
the  Reformation  tercentenary  by  some  warning  anti-papistical 
verses,  appealing  to  all  Germans  to  take  care  that  the  old  enemy 
should  gain  no  advantage,  and  ending  with  the  assurance : 


*  Auch  ich  soil  gottgegebne  Kraft  nicht  ungeniitzt  verlieren 
Und  will  in  Kunst  und  Wissenscliaft  wie  immer  protestiren.’ 


His 

scientific 

and 

literary- 

studies. 


His  scientific  activity  had  in  this  century  taken  a  perceptibly  his¬ 
torical  and  critical  direction.  Political  history,  indeed,  he 
hardly  touched  upon,  except  in  a  few  isolated  instances. 

But  he  now  followed  up  his  book  on  Winckelmann  with 
his  ‘History  of  the  Theory  of  Colour,’  and  with  several 
writings  on  the  history  of  literature.  His  translation  of 
Diderot’s  dialogue,  4  Rameau’s  Nephew,’  was  accompanied  by  an 
excellent  analysis  of  the  French  spirit  in  the  eighteenth  century. 
He  now  began  to  concern  himself  more  with  his  own  history  and 
past  productions.  Between  the  years  1806  and  1808  he  published 
an  edition  of  his  works  in  twelve  volumes;  between  1815  and  1819 
one  in  twenty  volumes,  and  between  1827  and  1830  one  in  forty 
volumes,  each  time  making  fresh  additions.  In  connection  with  the 
first  edition  he  began  writing  4  Wahrheit  und  Dichtung,’  in  which  he 
made  the  history  of  literature  in  the  eighteenth  century  a  background 
for  the  history  of  his  own  youth.  While  such  a  thoughtful  investigator 
of  human  nature  as  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt  considered 
genius  to  be  inexplicable,  Goethe  undertook  in  this  book 
to  trace  the  connection  of  cause  and  effect,  and  to  ex¬ 
plain  how  he  had  come  to  be  what  he  was.  This  auto¬ 
biography  was  a  scientific  achievement  of  the  highest 
order,  and,  at  least  in  the  three  first  volumes  of  181 1, 

18  r  2,  and  1814,  a  masterpiece  of  historical  art.  It  is  charmingly  told, 
and  the  composition  is  most  successful,  with  its  apparently  fortuitous, 
but  in  reality  cleverly  contrived  transitions  and  divisions.  It  is  rich 
in  characters  and  events,  and  the  interest  never  flags  for  a  moment. 
The  fourth  volume,  published  from  Goethe’s  literary  remains,  con¬ 
tains  in  part  disconnected  materials,  not  yet  artistically  worked  up. 
Further  records  of  his  life  are  furnished  in  his  reports  of  his  Italian 
VOL.  11.  s 


‘  Wahrheit 
und 

Dichtung  ’ 
and  other 
autobio¬ 
graphical 
works. 


258 


Romanticism . 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Maxims. 


journey,  in  the  war  reports  of  1792  and  1793,  in  the  ‘  History  of 
my  Botanical  Studies/  in  the  ‘  Day  and  Year-books/  in  his  pub- 
Essays  on  Wished  correspondence  with  Schiller,  and  elsewhere. 
Oriental  He  gave  an  account  of  his  oriental  studies  in  the  pre- 
literature.  fatory  essays  to  his  ‘West-eastern  Divan/  which  con¬ 
tain  valuable  contributions  to  the  knowledge  of  the  oriental  litera¬ 
tures,  reports  on  oriental  research  in  general,  besides  aesthetic  and 
philosophic  opinions.  In  later  life  he  was  fond  of 
putting  down  in  short  maxims  and  reflections  the  sum 
of  his  thoughts  on  various  subjects,  and  to  this  habit  we  owe  many 
precious  sayings,  highly  suggestive  and  full  of  the  deepest  wisdom 
and  loftiest  ideas. 

In  1804  a  chance  occurrence  made  him  return  to  criticism,  which 

Goethe’s  had  realty  given  up  since  1772,  in  which  year  he 

journalistic  contributed  with  Merck  and  Herder  to  the  ‘  Frankfurter 

work,  1804.  geiehrten  Anzeigen.’  The  editors  of  the  ‘Allgemeine 

Litteraturzeitung  ’  left  Jena,  and  took  their  journal  with  them. 

Goethe  at  once  wished  to  replace  it,  and  called  a  new  critical  review 

into  existence,  in  connection  with  which  he  developed  marvellous 

journalistic  skill,  and  showed  the  greatest  energy  and  talent  for 

organization.  In  articles  of  his  own  he  furnished  some  splendid 

models  of  objective  literary  criticism ;  he  did  justice  equally  to 

.  _  .  Voss’  poems  and  to  the  ‘  Wunderhorn.’  Later  on  he 

Und  used  his  publications  on  ‘  Art  and  Antiquity,’  which  he 

Alterthum,’  began  in  1816  and  continued  to  his  death,  as  a  vehicle 
1816-1832 

for  encouragingyoung  talents,  attacking  false  tendencies, 
and  showing  his  sympathy  with  German  and  foreign  literary  pro¬ 
ductions  by  means  of  reviews,  notices,  quotations  and  translations. 
In  these  papers  he  welcomed  Riickert  and  Platen,  Manzoni  and 
Byron,  Tegn^r  and  the  French  Romanticists.  In  these  he  ex¬ 
pressed  his  delight  with  the  historical  works  of  Niebuhr,  Schlosser, 
and  Friedrich  von  Raumer;  in  these  he  published  some  of  Jacob 
Grimm’s  translations  from  the  Serbian,  and  repeatedly  manifested  his 
deep  interest  in  the  popular  poetry  of  all  nations.  In  these  he 
uttered  the  hope  that  Germany  might  through  its  zealous  activity  in 
translation  become,  in  a  measure,  the  market  of  universal  literature, 
and  that  foreign  nations  wrould  learn  German  in  order  to  gain 


Lyric  Poetry. 


Ch.  XIII.] 


25  9 


access  to  the  intellectual  achievements  of  so  many  ancient  and 
modern  nations. 

The  sympathy  which  he  extended  on  all  sides  was  richly  requited. 
He  was  in  regular  correspondence  with  Berlin  ;  friends  G-oethe’s 
of  his  took  care  that  no  important  work  which  ap-  „  large 
peared  in  the  Prussian  capital  should  escape  his  notice,  correspond- 
and  that  his  words  of  approbation  should  not  fail  to 
reach  and  delight  the  authors.  French,  English,  Italian,  and  Polish 
poets  paid  him  their  homage  in  person  and  from  afar.  He  was,  as 
it  were,  the  president  of  the  European  republic  of  letters,  and  he 
placed  his  nation  at  the  head  of  the  intellectual  movement  of  the 
century. 

Lyric  Poetry. 


We  can  hardly  doubt  that  the  advance  of  science  and  learning 
which  we  have  noticed,  together  with  the  increase  of  religiosity  and 
the  strong  development  of  political  activity,  gradually  undermined 
the  power  of  German  poetry  in  the  nineteenth  century  as  in  the 
thirteenth  and  weakened  the  nation’s  sympathy  for  serious  poetic 
efforts.  But  in  .the  first  decades  of  this  century,  lyrical  poetry  at  least 
developed  a  wealth  of  individuality  and  style,  of  subject  and  form, 
a  depth  of  feeling  and  variety  of*  expression  far  above  Qerman 
anything  achieved  by  the  Minnesingers,  and  unparal-  jyric  poetry 
leled  in  any  other  literature.  in  the 

The  leading  contrasts  of  the  older  German  lyric  besinnins  of 
,  .  „  .  .  .T  i  this  century, 

poetry  were  almost  typically  expressed  m  Hagedorn 

and  Haller.  The  bright  light  poetry  of  the  former  was  continued 

by  the  Anacreontic  poets,  the  serious  and  weighty 

poetry  of  the  latter  by  Klopstock  and  his  school.  The  The  Ana' 

Anacreontic  poets  remained  in  sympathy  with  the  poets,  and 

witty,  trivial  French  poetry,  and  specially  favoured  the  the  school 

idyll  and  the  burlesque  satire ;  Klopstock  and  his  of 

li.  1 0  ]p  S  L  O  0  K. . 

followers  were  admirers  of  Young’s  melancholy  ‘  Night 
Thoughts,’  and  of  the  misty  world  of  Ossian,  and  inclined  to  elegy 
and  biting  satire.  The  former  praised  in  their  didactic  poems 
the  earthly  paradise  of  moderation ;  the  latter  dwelt  on  the  sub¬ 
lime  awfulness  of  death,  and  opened  out  vistas  of  eternity.  These 


26'o 


Romanticism . 


[Ch.  XIII. 


poetry. 
G  Jacobi, 
Schmidt, 
G.  von 
Gockingk, 
Gotter, 
Tiedge. 


contrasts  were  not  strictly  marked  in  every  poet,  and  they  were 
sometimes  united  in  the  same  person.  Goethe  began  as  an 
Anacreontic  poet,  and  Schiller  followed  in  the  steps  of  Haller ;  but 
each  of  these  poets  drew  suggestions  from  many  different  sources 
and  each  developed  his  own  individual  style.  They  were  both 
able  to  do  justice  to  various  metres  and  various  styles,  without  ever 
sinking  to  the  level  of  mere  imitators. 

Anacreontic  poetry  really  decayed  in  the  eighteenth  century,  even 
though  many  of  its  representatives  lived  on  into  the 
Anacreontic  nineteenth.  Georg  Jacobi  produced  a  few  very 
beautiful  songs,  pure  in  form  and  sentiment.  Klamer 
Schmidt,  of  Halberstadt,  acquired  some  fame  about 
1770  as  an  imitator  of  Petrarch  and  Catullus  and  as 
the  author  of  rather  trivial  versified  epistles,  chiefly 
remarkable  for  the  ingenuity  of  their  rhyming. 
Gunther  von  Gockingk  wrote  some  poetic  epistles 
somewhat  richer  in  matter  and  thought  than  Schmidt’s ;  his  songs 
between  two  lovers  form  a  complete  romance,  often  showing  great 
dramatic  power.  Friedrich  Wilhelm  Gotter  of  Gotha  was  a 
thorough  disciple  of  the  French  school,  and  one  of  the  last  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  Alexandrine  tragedy ;  he  also  distinguished  him¬ 
self  by  writing  epistles,  in  which  clever  rhyming  takes  the  place  of 
creative  power.  August  Tiedge  was  a  writer  of  epistles  like  Gleim 
and  his  friends,  to  whose  band  he  belonged ;  in  his  language  he 
rather  reminds  us  of  Schiller,  and  in  his  elegies  and  his  ‘  Urania/ 
(1801)  a  lyrico-didactic  poem  on  God,  Immortality  and  Liberty,  he 
takes  us  back  to  Klopstock  and  Haller. 

Friedrich  Matthison  was  decidedly  of  the  school  of  Klopstock, 
Holty,  and  Ossian;  he  became  known  about  1780,  end 
was  esteemed  as  a  sentimental  poetical  landscape- 
painter,  and  even  praised  by  Schiller.  In  his  ‘  Elegy 
written  in  the  ruins  of  an  old  castle/  he  paints  the  life 
of  chivalry  and  revels  in  the  thought  of  the  past. 
His  *  Lake  of  Geneva  ’  is  written  in  praise  of  the 
district  which  was  the  cradle  of  the  modern  romantic 
feeling  for  nature,  and  in  a  truly  Klopstockian  manner  introduces 
allusions  to  distant  times  and  things.  His  ‘Distichs  from  Italy’  are 


School  of 
Klopstock. 
Matthison, 
Salis, 

Friederike 

Brun, 

Baggesen. 


Ch.  xiil]  Lyric  Poetry .  261 

more  graphic  and  animated,  and  may  be  compared  with  Goethe’s 
Roman  Elegies  and  Venetian  Epigrams.  Baron  von  Salis  and 
Friederike  Biun  were  connected  with  Matthison  by  personal 
friendship,  and  their  poetic  productions  also  are  akin  to  his.  The 
Dane  Jens  Baggesen,  through  his  idyllic  epic  ‘Parthenais’  (1802), 
joined  in  the  worship  of  Switzerland;  he  transferred  the  Greek 
gods  to  the  mountains  of  the  Bernese  Oberland,  and  importuned 
them  with  the  little  journeys  and  love-experiences  of  contemporary 
people.  Schiller’s  Swabian  countrymen  too,  Conz,  Conz  and 
Neuffer  and  Holderlin,  cultivated  natural  description  Neuffer. 
and  classical  forms.  Neuffer  tried  his  hand  at  the  idyll  after  Voss’ 
model,  and  the  unhappy  Holderlin,  who  ended  in  madness,  sang 
a  few  most  affecting  songs. 

Holderlin  was  born  in  1770,  and  in  Tubingen,  as  a  fellow- 

student  with  Hegel  and  Schelling,  he  became  an 

,  ,  •  ,  ,  .  ...  Holderlin. 

ardent  pantheist  and  at  the  same  time  an  enthusiastic 

admirer  of  the  old  Greek  world.  His  romance  ‘  Hyperion’  and 
his  unfinished  tragedy  ‘  Empedocles  ’  are  only  the  expression  of 
his  personal  sentiments ;  epic  and  dramatic  poetry  are  with  him 
only  masks  for  lyric  poetry.  He  is  as  unwilling  as  Klopstock  to 
touch  the  earth.  Schiller  had  the  greatest  influence  on  him,  and 
his  earliest  rhymed  stanzas  do  homage,  in  rhetoric  very  similar  to 
Schiller’s,  to  the  usual  ideals  of  enthusiastic  youth.  But  his  rhyme¬ 
less  odes  and  free  rhythms,  his  distichs  and  hexameters  which  were 
written  between  1796  and  1801,  show  us  an  original  genius  of  high 
power,  inspired  by  the  Hellenic  spirit.  His  art  ripened  into  a  calm 
beauty.  His  disappointment  in  love  found  expression  in  his  poetry, 
and  his  songs  were  short,  like  his  happiness.  Deep  sorrow  quivers 
beneath  his  quiet  words;  inward  and  outward  incidents,  psychological 
experiences  and  natural  description  are  united  in  harmony ;  his 
exact  observation  of  outward  nature  acquires,  like  Goethe’s,  a  sym¬ 
bolical  character.  Definite  outlines  are  not  wanting  in  his  land¬ 
scapes  ;  he  has  given  us  a  clear  and  faithful  picture  of  Heidelberg 
in  a  poem  which  also  contains  a  most  exquisite  description  of  the 
approach  of  the  starry  night.  But  he  prefers  to  revel  in  vague 
feelings  and  emotions.  He  worships  the  grandeur  of  nature  with 
the  piety  of  a  Greek,  and  mentions  the  names  of  the  gods  with 


262 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


awe.  ‘Hyperion’s  Song  of  Fate’  pictures  with  bitterness  the 
contrast  between  the  blessed  spirits  up  on  high  in  light,  and  suf¬ 
fering  men  below,  falling  blindly  from  one  hour  to  another,  like 
water  hurled  from  cliff  to  cliff,  for  years  and  years  down  into  un¬ 
certainty.  But  Holderlin  is  also  much  impressed  by  the  life  and 
character  of  Jesus,  the  friend  of  man ;  the  thought  of  him  recalls 
remembrances  of  home  and  childhood,  and,  as  in  days  gone  by, 


he  finds  tears  of  comfort  dropping  from  his  eyes. 

Holderlin,  Voss,  and  Claudius,  were  all  three  religious-minded 
men,  though  the  first  was  a  pantheist,  the  second  a  rationalist,  and 
the  third  orthodox.  Voss  was  really  a  disciple  of  Klopstock,  but 
the  poetry  of  domestic  life,  which  he  shared  with  Claudius,  quite 
brought  him  down  to  the  earth,  and  his  popular  songs  place  him 
by  the  side  of  an  Anacreontic  poet,  like  Christian  Felix  Weisse. 
Hebei’s  ‘Alemannic  poems’  (1803)  maybe  classed  togetherwith  Voss’ 
Hebei’s  Low-German  idylls,  while  his  prose-writings,  his  ‘Tales 
‘Aleman-  of  the  Rhenish  Family  Friend  ’  and  his  ‘  Biblical  stories 
nische  ’  for  young  people,’  belongtothe  same  group  as  Claudius’ 
Gedichte.  p0pU]ar  WOrks.  Hebei  was  a  clergyman  and  school¬ 
master  in  Karlsruhe,  but  his  birthplace  was  a  village  in  the  high¬ 
lands  of  Baden  ;  the  ‘  Alemannic  poems  ’  are  written  in  the  dialect  of 
that  district,  and  the  characters  are  also  drawn  from  the  life  which  the 
poet  had  known  there.  We  have  noticed  how  Goethe  drew  sugges¬ 
tions  for  his  idyllic  descriptions  from  the  Old  Testament ;  Hebei 
proceeded  in  an  exactly  opposite  manner.  For  instance,  he 
transferred  the  story  of  David’s  adventure  with  Nabal  and  Abigail 
into  contemporary  peasant  life,  and  made  out  of  it  his  ‘  Stadthalter 
von  Schopfheim.’  While  the  poetic  landscape-painters  too  often  gave 
a  mere  lifeless  description  of  nature  with  a  few  slightly  connected 
incidents,  Hebei  succeeded  in  animating  nature  by  naively  humanis¬ 
ing  it  in  the  manner  which  Herder  had  conjecturally  attributed  to 
primitive  times,  and  thus  created  a  peculiar  mythology  of  his  own, 
introducing  all  the  features  of  peasant  life.  He  drew  little  scenes 
from  real  life  with  a  sure  hand  and  with  bright  humour.  He  is 
fond  of  putting  songs  in  the  mouth  of  some  special  character,  such 
as  a  contented  peasant,  a  youth  in  love,  a  beggar  or  a  night- 
watchman,  and  he  likes  to  reproduce  a  conversation  between  a 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Lyric  Poetry. 


263 


mother  and  her  children,  or  a  father  and  his  sons.  Herein  also 
he  continued  the  style  of  Claudius,  and  the  poets  of  the  Gottingen 
‘  Hain,'  but  he  surpassed  them  all  by  his  deep  sympathy  with  the 
thoughts  and  interests  of  the  people. 

Hebei's  example  exercised  an  influence  on  the  thoughtful  artist 
soul  of  Martin  Usteri,  the  author  of  a  song  which  was  usteri’s 
formerly  very  popular  in  Germany,  ‘Freut  euch  des  Swiss  poems. 
Lebens.’  Usteri  used  his  native  Zurich  dialect  in  songs  and  hexa- 
metric  idylls,  and  also  wrote  ballads  and  historical  romances  in  the 
old  Swiss  German.  He  was  a  moderate  romanticist,  who  knew 
how  to  touch  and  amuse  his  readers  better  than  many  a  pretentious 
poet  of  greater  fame. 

Poetry  in  dialect  became  a  general  fashion  about  the  beginning 
of  the  century.  Some  time  before  this,  the  tin-mer- 

Other  poems 

chant  Konrad  Griibel  of  Niirnberg  had  published  in  dialect, 
a  collection  of  poems  describing  the  Philistinism  of  Grubel 
small  towns  in  a  style  which  reminds  one  of  the  Nurn-  and  Sailer- 
berg  shoemaker,  Hans  Sachs ;  and  still  earlier  the  Catholic  priest 
Sebastian  Sailer  had  written  his  delightful  dramas  in  the  Swabian 
dialect  which  were  now  for  the  first  time  collected  and  printed. 
Professor  Arnold  of  Strassburg  wrote  a  dramatic  idyll  in  the  Alsa¬ 
tian  dialect  entitled  ‘  Whit-Monday, ’  and  his  example  Arnold 
was  followed  by  Castelli  in  Vienna,  and  by  Holtei  in  Castelli,  and 
Silesia.  Most  of  these  attempts  were  introduced  to  Holtei. 
the  German  public  through  Goethe's  recommendation.  Thus  there 
arose  a  new  kind  of  popular  poetry,  rather  different,  it  is  true,  from 
the  old  traditional  popular  poetry  which  Romanticism  had  brought 
into  new  honour. 

The  older  romantic  school  produced  little  of  lasting  merit  in 
lyric  poetry.  Novalis  was  their  best  lyric  poet,  and 
he  died  in  1801,  at  the  early  age  of  29.  Over  the 
grave  of  his  bride  he  sang  from  the  depths  of  his 
sorrow  his  marvellous  ‘Hymns  to  Night;' they  are 
not  written  in  strict  metre,  but  in  melodious  prose 
which  reminds  us  of  the  rendering  of  Ossian  in  Goethe’s  ‘Werther.’ 
Novalis’  religious  hymns  show  us  a  basis  of  Moravian  piety  in¬ 
fluenced  by  Schleiermacher's  addresses  on  religion ;  they  are  a  noble 


Lyric  poets 
of  the 
romantic 
school. 
Novalis. 


264 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


expression  of  a  childlike  love  of  Christ,  a  simple  faith  in  the  real 
presence  of  the  Saviour,  independent  of  any  fixed  creed.  Here 
we  find  thoughts  from  Goethe  christianised,  and  secular  things 
treated  in  a  religious  spirit,  in  a  manner  akin  to  Paul  Gerhardt’s. 
These  hymns  are  all  written  in  rhymed  verse,  except  one  hymn  in 
rhymeless  metre,  which  reminds  us  of  some  of  the  Pindaric  poetry 
of  Goethe’s  youth,  or  of  Faust’s  words  to  Gretchen  about  the  all- 
embracing,  all-sustaining  deity. 

Tieck  threw  off  his  productions  with  a  light  hand,  and  was 

content  with  the  first  draught.  He  had  great  talent, 
Tieck.  . 0  0  ’ 

but  was  wanting  in  seriousness  and  thoroughness. 

His  poems  are  full  of  obscurities  and  incorrectnesses,  empty  jing¬ 
ling  rhymes  and  trivial  thoughts ;  there  is  a  lavish  display  of 
figurative  language  and  poetic  ideas,  and  all  to  illustrate  passing 
moods,  for  from  the  depth  of  the  heart  he  has  little  to  tell  us.  He 
seems  to  care  more  about  sound  than  sense  in  his  poetry,  and  this 
often  leads  him  into  mere  absurdity.  The  poems  written  during 
his  travels  in  1805  and  1806  are  on  a  somewhat  higher  level  than  the 
rest.  The  free  unrhymed  metres  in  these  poems  sometimes  approach 
hexameters,  and  the  sculpture-like  descriptions  occasionally  remind 
us  of  Goethe.  But  Tieck’s  enthusiasm  for  art  and  antiquity  is  less 
successful  than  his  observation  of  the  life  going  on  immediately 
around  him,  street-scenes,  beggars,  pilgrims  and  such-like ;  in  his 
descriptions  of  these  we  find  what  we  miss  so  much  in  most  of  his 
poetry,  i.  e.  a  connected  course  of  action,  an  attempt  at  dramatic  plot. 
While  Tieck  mostly  excites  mere  vague  emotions,  Wilhelm 
Wilhelm  Schlegel,  on  the  contrary,  is  wanting  in  all  force  of 
Schlegel.  emot'on ;  he  is  always  correct,  but  often  cold  and  dull. 
His  love-poems  are  full  of  high-sounding  words  and  graceful 
thoughts,  but  are  woefully  deficient  in  spontaneity  and  dramatic 
power.  His  knowledge  of  Italy  profited  him  nothing ;  his  poems 
in  distichs  are  pure  Renaissance-poetry,  and  do  not  rise  above  the 
level  of  the  better  Latin  elegies  of  the  sixteenth  century.  His 
romances,  on  the  contrary,  derived  great  benefit  from  Schiller’s 
influence,  and  really  show  some  original  power.  He  was  equally 
successful  in  composing  sonnets  full  of  reflections,  while  he  accom¬ 
plished  his  best  in  a  few  humorous  satirical  poems.  In  this  class  of 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Lyric  Poetry . 


2  6' 


poetry  Friedrich  Schlegel  is,  if  we  except  a  few  clever  parodies,  on 
the  whole  inferior  to  his  brother.  But  in  his  rhymed  poems  he 
unites  melody  with  feeling  and  correct  form,  and  Friedrich 
sometimes  gives  us  a  definite  dramatic  situation.  Schlegel. 

Patriotic  thoughts  and  imitations  of  older  German  poetry  are  to 
be  found  both  in  Tieck  and  in  the  two  Schlegels,  most  Patriotic 
of  all  in  Friedrich  Schlegel;  but  others  were  destined  poetry, 
to  greater  and  more  lasting  success  in  this  sphere.  Wilhelm 
Schlegel  fully  recognised  the  want  of  an  energetic,  sincere  and 
patriotic  German  poetry,  especially  at  that  time,  when  German  in¬ 
dependence  seemed  threatened  by  the  conquests  of  Napoleon. 
Schlegel’s  wish  was  to  be  fulfilled  ;  Germany’s  need  raised  up  a 
band  of  patriot  poets,  who  sang  songs  more  powerful  than  any  yet 
produced  in  German  literature,  songs  which  inspired  the  German 
people  in  their  struggle  for  liberty. 

Goethe  did  not  possess  the  great  gift  of  patriotic  song.  He  was 
one  of  those  faint-hearted  ones  who  believed  the  power  of  the 
great  Napoleon  to  be  invincible.  Younger  poets  attempted  what 
he  neglected.  Patriotic  poetry  was  produced  without  interruption 
from  1806  to  1815,  and  reached  its  zenith  in  1813  and  1814. 
Achim  von  Arnim  lamented  in  angry  tones  the  Prussian  de¬ 
feats.  Henry  Joseph  von  Collin  published  in  1809  Arnim 
his  Austrian  ‘  Wehrmannslieder ;  ’  Heinrich  von  and 
Kleist  expressed  in  stormy  language  his  unbounded  Collin, 

hatred  of  the  foreigner.  Friedrich  Baron  de  la  Motte  Fouqu£ 
wrote  in  1813  a  war-song  for  the  Volunteers: — 

‘  Frisch  auf  zum  fronlichen  JagenZ  Max  von  Schenk-  pOUque 
endorf  was  by  nature  a  gentle  lyrist  with  great  power  Schenken- 
of  melodious  language.  He  had  formed  his  style  on  dorf» 
Goethe,  the  popular  songs  and  the  Minnesingers,  and  stagemann- 
was  filled  with  enthusiasm  for  emperor  and  empire,  for  chivalry 
and  the  Middle  Ages,  for  the  Rhine  and  its  castles.  He  followed  the 
course  of  the  struggle  in  enthusiastic  but  occasionally  somewhat 
empty  verses.  Friedrich  August  von  Stagemann,  a  Prussian,  like 
Arnim,  Kleist,  Fouqud  and  Schenkendorf,  but  more  vigorous  than 
Schenkendorf  and  more  moderate  in  tone  than  Kleist,  reminds  us 
sometimes  of  Ramler,,  sometimes  of  Schiller.  The  solemn  ode- 


266 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Biickert. 


Korner. 


Arndt. 


style  which  he  adopted  prevented  his  poems  from  becoming 
popular.  Friedrich  Riickert,  in  his  ‘  Geharnischte  Sonnete,’  did 
not  even  triumph  over  the  difficulties  of  rhyme.  In 
his  war-songs  and  in  his  satirical  and  eulogistic  songs 
he  tried  in  vain  to  strike  the  tone  of  popular  poetry.  The  in¬ 
tellectual  element  would  effect  an  entrance  where  only  force  and 
passion  were  needed,  and  glorious  poetic  touches  were  often  spoilt  by 
imperfections  of  thought  and  form.  Theodor  Korner,  ‘  singer  and 
hero,’  as  Uhland  called  him,  sealed  with  his  death  the 
sentiments  expressed  in  his  songs.  These  songs,  half- 
lyrical,  half-rhetorical  in  tone  and  set  to  beautiful  melodies,  exercised 
a  most  inspiring  influence.  There  is  no  backward  glance  on  past 
times  here,  no  sentimental  dreaming,  but  youthful  energy  and  ardent 
enthusiasm  in  a  great  cause.  Korner  came  from  Dresden,  but 
fought  and  fell  in  the  Liitzow  Volunteer  Corps.  His  father  was 
Schiller's  friend,  and  Theodor  grew  up  in  the  worship  of  Schiller, 
and  imbibed  his  lofty  spirit.  He  became  an  idealist  like  Max 
Piccolomini,  and  his  patriotic  views  were  those  ex¬ 
pressed  by  Schillers  Joan  of  Arc. 

Ernst  Moriz  Arndt  surpassed  Kornerandall  his  brother-poets  both  in 
immediate  and  in  lasting  influence.  His  prose  and  verse  went  straight 
to  the  German  heart  and  conscience.  He  was  a  popular  orator 
through  his  pen,  and  held  a  position  in  the  struggle  with  Napoleon 
similar  to  that  held  by  Walther  von  der  Vogelweide  in  the  struggle 
with  Rome.  He  was  spiritually  akin  to  Luther,  especially  in  his 
trust  in  God.  Arndt  was  born  in  1769,  studied  in  1793  and  1794 
during  Fichte’s  time  at  Jena,  and  watched  in  his  early  youth  the 
dawn  of  Romanticism.  But  he  was  unaffected  himself  by  the 
movement,  for  all  his  powers  were  devoted  to  one  object  from 
His  which  he  never  swerved — to  free  his  country  from 

patriotic  the  foreign  yoke.  In  1803,  under  the  title  of  ‘  Ger- 
pamphiets.  many  and  Europe,’  he  gave  a  description  of  the 
state  of  things  in  1802.  Three  years  later  he  began  his  ‘  Spirit 
of  the  Times,’  and  in  1812,  together  with  Baron  von  Stein, 
he  joined  the  European  movement  against  Napoleon.  He 
then  sent  forth  a  number  of  pamphlets,  the  ‘  Catechism  for  the 
German  warrior  and  defender,’  ‘  What  means  Landsturm  and 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Lyric  Poetry . 


267 


Landwehr  ?  ’  ‘  The  Rhine  Germany’s  stream,  but  not  Germany’s 
boundary,’  ‘  Prussia’s  Rhenish  Mark,’  and  many  others,  all  full  of 
life  and  ardour,  of  faith  and  hope.  The  first  in  particular  is  most 
grand,  with  its  Biblical  style  and  prophetic  tone.  They  all  express 
enthusiasm  for  Prussia,  though  their  author  was  really  a  native  of 
Riigen,  which  was  at  that  time  still  Swedish.  At  the  same  time 
Arndt  wrote  his  most  beautiful  songs.  In  celebrating  the  German 
heroes,  Schill,  Dornberg,  Gneisenan,  Chasot,  he 
adopted  the  graphic  style  of  the  older  historical  Hls  song3, 
popular  songs,  and  was  fond  of  beginning  with  a  question  (cf.  in 
particular  his  songs:  ‘Was  ist  des  Deutschen  Vaterland  ?  ’  and 
‘  Was  blasen  die  Trompeten?  ’)  He  describes  the  battle  of  Leipzig 
after  the  manner  of  some  old  German  gleeman’s  songs,  in  the  form 
of  alternate  question  and  answer  between  those  who  have  been 
waiting  for  news  and  the  messenger  from  the  battle-field.  Besides 
his  war-songs,  Arndt  also  wrote  popular  love-songs,  parting-songs 
and  cradle-songs,  and  lifted  up  his  soul  with  simple  piety  to  God 
in  prayer.  He  produced  splendid  social  and  drinking-songs,  and 
as  a  riper  successor  of  the  Gottingen  tyrant-haters,  he  gave  utter¬ 
ance  to  the  grand  chorus  : 

‘  Der  Gott  der  Eisen  wachsen  liess 
Der  wollte  keine  Knechte.’ 

After  the  peace  he  was  made  professor  of  modern  history  in 
Bonn.  But  before  long  he  became  implicated  in  the  Arndt 
wretched  political  persecutions;  his  papers  were  Professor 
taken  possession  of  and  he  was  deprived  of  his  office.  in  Bonn. 

It  was  not  till  after  the  accession  of  King  Frederick  1)16(1 1860- 
William  IV  that  this  wrong  was  repaired;  in  1840  the  old  man 
was  allowed  to  resume  his  professorial  duties,  and  he  continued  to 
fulfil  them  till  1854.  He  lived  on  till  i860,  bright  and  happy  to 
the  last.  In  his  delightful  autobiography  he  remarks  :  *  Man  is 
happy  according  to  the  measure  of  his  most  powerful  feelings,  that 
is  to  say,  if  his  feeling  is  of  such  a  nature  as  not  to  overpower 
his  reason.’  Arndt’s  breast  was  dominated  by  powerful  emotion  in 
the  days  of  trouble,  but  his  clear  reason  wras  never  led  astray.  He 
was  a  sterling  man  in  heart  and  brain,  like  the  brothers  Grimm, 
not  a  scholar  by  nature,  and  not  like  the  Grimms  sprung  from  the 


268 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Uhl  and’ s 
early  poems 
and  his  two 
dramas. 


educated  classes,  but  a  peasant  by  birth  and  in  constant  sympathy 
with  the  peasants. 

The  tone  given  to  poetry  by  the  Wars  of  Liberation  lived  on 
The  *  Bur-  among  the  youth  of  the  Universities  and  among  the 
schenschaft.’  gymnastic  societies.  The  revolutionary  extravagances 
of  the  Gottingen  band  of  poets  revived  again  in  a  more  serious 
form  in  the  students’  associations  [Bur schenschaft).  Karl  Follenius 
composed  his  ‘  great  song,'  in  which  he  gave  utterance  to  the 
following  vow :  ‘This  sword  shall  know  no  rest  till  all  those 
princes  and  fathers,  taskmasters,  slaves,  and  traitors  are  covered  by 
earth  and  night.’  But  these  students’  associations  were  soon 
suppressed,  and  their  elegy  was  sung  by  August  Binzer  in  his 
poem: — ‘  Wir  hatten  gebauet  ein  stattliches  Haus/ 

About  the  same  time  the  name  of  Uhland  became  famous.  His 
poems  which  he  had  begun  to  publish  in  1806  did  not 
appear  in  a  complete  collection  till  1815.  The 
‘Fatherland  poems,’  which  were  called  forth  by  the 
Wiirtemberg  constitutional  struggle,  appeared  in  1816, 
and  in  an  enlarged  edition  in  1817.  In  1818  and  1819  he  published 
his  two  dramas :  ‘  Ernst,  Duke  of  Swabia,’  and  ‘  Louis  the 
Bavarian ;  ’  they  were  both  beautiful  poems,  but  never  achieved 
a  success  on  the  stage,  nor  indeed  deserved  to  achieve  it. 

Uhland,  Justinus  Kerner  and  a  few  others  formed  the  so-called 
The  new  Swabian  school.  They  were  on  an  average  about 
romantic  or  thirty  years  younger  than  their  countryman  Schiller, 
Swabian  and  about  twenty  years  younger  than  their  countryman 
school.  Holderlin,  who  lived  on  among  them  for  a  long  time 
with  a  mind  shrouded  in  darkness.  Uhland  and  Kerner  appeared 
before  the  public  together;  they  both  contributed  to  the  ‘  Hermit’s 
Newspaper,’  and  they  form  one  group  with  Arnim  and  Brentano. 
Amim  and  The  love  of  popular  songs  was  the  bond  which  united 
Brentano.  these  poets.  But  Arnim  and  Brentano  rendered 
greater  service  to  German  literature  through  the  publication  of  the 
‘  Wunderhorn  ’  than  through  their  own  original  productions.  Bren¬ 
tano  was  a  master  in  all  the  technique  of  popular  song,  though  he 
was  deficient  in  real  sympathy  with  the  public,  so  that  few  of  his 
songs  penetrated  into  wider  circles.  In  Arnim’s  poems  we  seldom 


Lyric  Poetry. 


Ch.  XIII.] 


find  one  that  is  not  spoilt  by  some  obscurity  or  caprice,  a  pun  in 
the  wrong  place,  a  prosaic  expression,  or  forced  rhymes. 

Justinus  Kerner  sang  his  songs  as  naturally  and  artlessly  as 
Arnim,  but  he  was  most  successful  in  hitting  the  true  justinus 
tone  of  popular  song.  Poetry  was  part  of  his  being;  Kerner. 
he  possessed  in  the  highest  degree  the  talent  of  poeticising  his  own 
experiences.  The  letters  to  his  affianced  bride  are  particularly 
charming  in  their  abando7i  and  their  wild  fancy.  Life  and  death, 
humour  and  madness  meet  us  in  close  connection  in  Kerner’s 
writings.  His  doctor’s  vocation  d'.d  not  blunt  his  sympathy  for 
the  sufferings  of  humanity.  Though  there  is  often  an  echo  of  sad¬ 
ness  in  his  songs,  yet  he  can  also  rise  to  a  level  of  sublime  grandeur. 
In  reading  some  of  his  descriptions  of  nature,  we  seem  to  stand 
again  on  the  primitive  soil  from  which  in  past  times  mythology 
grew  up. 

In  contrast  to  Kerner,  his  friend  Uhland  was  silent  and  repel- 
lant,  and  entirely  wanting  in  all  charm  of  poetic  uhland 
personality.  Little  of  his  personal  experience  seems  (1787-1862). 
to  have  found  expression  in  his  poetry.  But  he  had  the  advantage 
over  Kerner  in  sure  taste,  and  in  that  stern  industry  which  does 
not  rest  till  all  the  demands  of  good  taste  are  fulfilled.  Kerner 
declared  that  neither  art  nor  learning  had  helped  him  in  writing  his 
songs,  but  only  his  own  feelings.  Uhland,  on  the  contrary, 
possessed  both  learning  and  art,  and  these  two  gifts  made  him, 
with  lesser  poetic  talent,  the  greater  poet  of  the  two.  He  had 
little  originality  and  his  songs  are  confined  to  a  limited  number 
of  subjects;  we  find  comparatively  little  about  love  in  them,  more 
about  scenery,  times  and  seasons,  wanderings  and  various  stereo¬ 
typed  ideas.  He  cannot  strike  passionate  but  only  gentle  tones, 
and  he  too  is  constantly  recurring  to  thoughts  of  death,  and  is 
fond  of  giving  his  poems  a  melancholy  ending.  He  was  most 
successful  in  his  development  of  the  ballad,  for  which  his  extensive 
learning  supplied  him  with  the  -best  subjects.  He  began  to  write 
ballads  in  1803,  and  in  his  earliest  attempts  in  this  branch 

r  ,  ,  1  •  n  r  rri  His  ballads. 

of  poetry  we  can  clearly  trace  the  influence  01  Klop- 

stock,  Matthison  and  Chsian,  while  the  Northern  Sagas  also  supplied 

him  with  some  of  his  first  subjects.  He  next  gave  himself  up  to  a 


270 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


trivial  kind  of  romanticism,  full  of  sadness  and  renunciation,  and 
wrote  ballads  in  which  kings  and  queens  with  crimson  mantles 
and  golden  crowns,  king’s  daughters  and  beautiful  shepherds, 
harpers,  monks  and  nuns  play  a  great  part.  But  he  was  already- 
beginning  to  feel  the  influence  of  Goethe,  and  after  1807  the 
‘  Wunderhorn’  furnished  him  with  poetic  ideas,  while  the  popular 
songs,  the  Nibelungenlied  and  the  Spanish  Romances  determined 
his  style  and  language.  His  sentimentality  now  disappeared  and 
his  poems  assumed  a  more  cheerful  character.  Most  of  his 
ballads  of  this  period  are  full  of  chivalrous  adventure  and  strong 
passions,  while  a  few  introduce  some  truly  popular  characters 
(cDes  Goldschmied’s  Tochterlein,’  ‘  Der  gute  Kamerad’).  In 
1810  Uhland  went  to  Paris,  and  there  acquired  a  comprehend 
sive  knowledge  of  the  Middle  Ages,  which  found  expression 
in  his  poems.  The  German  and  French  heroic  legends,  Norman 
traditions,  the  biographies  of  the  Troubadours  were  now  all  made 
to  yield  him  subjects  for  poetic  treatment.  He  could  represent 
with  graphic  power  both  the  gallant  and  the  coarse  type  of 
chivalry ;  he  was  even  successful  in  the  humorous  vein,  and  the 
summit  of  his  powers  was  reached  in  his  poem  ‘  Taillefer,’  which 
His  appeared  in  1812.  From  1813  to  1817  his  poetry 
*  Taillefer/  was  almost  entirely  patriotic  in  character,  being 
chiefly  called  forth  by  the  battle  for  right  against 
arbitrary  power  in  the  Wiirtemberg  constitutional 
struggle.  Even  his  ballads  assumed  at  this  time  a 
local  and  patriotic  colouring,  and  this  tendency  resulted 
in  such  splendid  productions  as  his  dryly  humorous  ‘  Swabian 
News.’  In  later  years  his  poetic  inspiration  seemed  to  dry  up 
entirely,  and  though  he  wrote  a  few  poems  in  1829  and  1834, 
yet  when  he  died  in  1862,  his  death  could  hardly  be  felt  as  a 
loss  to  German  poetry,  but  only  to  German  learning. 

Uhland’s  method  of  treatment  in  all  his  poems  deserves  great 
Uhland’s  praise.  The  easy  volubility  of  his  early  poems  soon 
method  and  gave  place  to  emphatic  conciseness.  Many  of  his 
style.  songs,  it  is  true,  are  too  much  taken  up  with  detailed 
description,  but  others  show  us  real  progress  of  action,  and  a  few 
at  least  present  a  definite  situation.  In  his  ballads  he  shows  a 


patriotic 
poetry,  and 
‘  Schwa- 
bische 
Kunde.’ 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Lyric  Poetry . 


271 


complete  mastery  of  all  metres  and  styles,  and  is  equally  successful 
in  suggestive  brevity  and  in  epic  minuteness  of  detail.  He  gives  to 
every  subject  its  suitable  form,  is  seldom  obscure  or  stilted,  and 
always  attains  the  purpose  he  has  in  view.  No  one  can  deny  his 
complete  mastery  of  the  poetic  art.  The  Romantic  movement,  like 
the  earlier  ‘  Storm  and  Stress  ’  movement,  again  called  in  question 
the  standard  of  correctness  already  attained.  But  Uhland  re-estab¬ 
lished  the  old  correctness  of  form,  and  became  thereby  a  model  for 
younger  and  older  contemporary  poets,  such  as  Chamisso,  Eichen- 
dorff,  Wilhelm  Muller  and  others. 

Chamisso  (1781-1838)  was  a  French  nobleman  by  birth,  who 
found  a  new  home  in  Berlin.  He  described  in  a  truly  Chamisso, 
German  spirit  the  love  and  life  of  woman  and  home-  1781-1838. 
joys  and  sorrows.  His  poems  comprise  popular  songs,  legends 
and  fairy-tales,  but  the  great  movements  of  the  time  have  also  left 
some  impression  on  them.  Such  a  picture  from  the  life  of  the  people 
as  his  ‘  Old  Washerwoman  ’  may  have  been  suggested  by  the  ex¬ 
ample  of  his  compatriot  Beranger.  He  found  his  greatest  happiness 
in  the  observation  of  nature ;  among  the  semi-barbarous  people  with 
whom  he  was  brought  into  contact  in  a  journey  round  the  world,  he 
felt  himself  quite  at  home,  and  their  poetry  incited  him  to  imitation. 

Eichendorff  came  from  Silesia,  Wilhelm  Muller  from  Dessau. 
Both  fought  in  the  wars  of  Liberation  against  France. 

Both  were  much  influenced  by  the  popular  songs,  and 
wandering  was  a  favourite  subject  with  both,  so  that  in 
them  the  unsettled  minstrel  of  the  Middle  Ages  was 
revived,  at  least  in  poetic,  fiction.  They  both  liked 
to  write  poems  from  the  standpoint  of  some  particular  character,  as 
Goethe,  Uhland,  Hebei  and  others  sometimes  did,  and  thus  their  lyric 
poetry  introduces  us  to  musicians,  peasants,  soldiers,  students, 
sailors,  huntsmen,  apprentices,  shepherds,  or  fishermen.  In  ‘  Die 
Schone  Mullerin/  Muller  assumed  the  disguise  of  a  miller,  to  sing 
his  own  love  joys  and  love-sorrows.  But  in  their  disposition,  as 
well  as  in  their  religious  and  political  views,  Eichendorff  and 
Muller  were  quite  different.  Eichendorff  was  a  Roman  Catholic, 
Muller  a  Protestant ;  the  former  wrote  several  religious  poems, 
the  latter  gave  but  occasional  expression  to  his  deep  religious 


Eichendorff, 

1788-1857, 

and 

W.  Muller, 
1794-1827. 


2J2 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Imitators  of 
Uhland 
Schwab, 
Ebert, 
Simrock. 


sentiments.  Eichendorff  bad  a  strong  admiration  for  the  Middle 
Ages,  and  placed  his  ideal  in  the  past ;  Muller  had  only  a  literary 
appreciation  of  old  German  poetry,  lived  with  enthusiasm  in  the 
present,  belonged,  like  Chamisso,  to  the  Liberal  party,  and  accom¬ 
panied  the  Greek  struggle  for  freedom  with  sympathetic  songs. 
Eichendorff  affects  us  more  powerfully  than  Muller,  touching  our 
imagination  as  with  a  magic  wand.  Muller’s  poems,  whether  joy¬ 
ful  or  sorrowful,  have  a  ring  of  freshness  and  vivacity  about  them. 
He  greeted  the  spring  with  songs  of  ardent  rejoicing,  and  the  style 
of  the  Anacreontic  school  was  revived  in  his  songs  of  wine  and  love. 
Chamisso  produced  some  glorious  ballads ;  Eichendorff  and 
Muller  paid  less  attention  to  this  branch  of  poetry. 
Uhland’s  example,  however,  made  the  ballad  very 
popular,  in  fact,  all  too  popular  with  some  other  writers. 
He  found  imitators  in  the  Swabian  Gustav  Schwab, 
the  Bohemian  Egon  Ebert,  andthe  Rhenish  writer,  Karl 
Simrock.  Every  district  of  Germany  sooner  or  later  had  its  Uhland, 
who  clothed  its  local  history  and  legends  in  more  or  less  fluent  verses. 
Uhland’s  political  poetry  also  called  forth  many  imitations.  Graf 
Political  Auersperg,  who  wro'e  under  the  name  of  Anastasius 
poetry.  Grim,  lifted  up  his  voice  on  behalf  of  Austrian  liberty. 
Wilhelm  Muller’s  Greek  songs  found  successors  in  Count  Platen’s 
Polish  songs.  The  old  cosmopolitan  interest  in  foreign  nations  took 
not  only  a  literary  but  also  a  political  turn.  This  same  interest  had 
already  led  poets  to  lands  of  the  distant  East,  far  away  from  the  tumults 
of  modern  Europe,  to  Persia  as  it  was  in  the  Middle  Ages,  when  Hafis 
sang  of  wine  and  love.  Riickert’s  ‘Eastern  Roses’  were  an  offshoot 
from  Goethe’s  ‘  West-eastern  Divan.’  But  though  Goethe  might  call 
himself  Hatem,  the  turban  was  but  a  masque,  and  though  he  spoke  of 
Timur,  the  reader  might  easily  recognise  Napoleon.  As  for  the 
Suleika  who  answers  Hatem  in  melodious  verses,  we  know  now 
that  she  lived  in  Frankfurt,  that  her  name  was  Marianne  von 
Willemer,  and  that  two  of  the  tenderest  and  most  beautiful  among 
the  ‘  Divan’  songs  proceeded  from  her  pen. 

In  later  years  Goethe  was  fond  of  having  recourse  to  forms  which 
impose  a  definite  restraint  on  the  poet.  His  social  songs  of  1803 
had  already  shown  how  he  welcomed  external  incitements  to  poetic 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Lyric  Poetry. 


273 


creation.  In  the  first  decade  of  this  century  the  sonnet-form  which 
Burger  had  so  strongly  favoured  came  into  fashion  with  the  Romantic 
school,  and  immediately  the  anti-Romanticists  vigorously  attacked  it. 
Voss  raved  against  it,  and  Baggesen  published  his  ‘Klingklingel-alma- 
nach’ turning  it  and  other  Southern  forms  of  poetry  into  ridicule.  When 
the  controversy  was  at  its  height  Goethe  began  to  use  the  same 
form  in  a  cycle  of  sonnets,  filling  it  with  that  wealth  of  outward  action 
or  inward  emotion  which  came  so  easily  to  him,  and  which  all  other 
poets  found  so  difficult.  In  1812  and  1813  Joseph  von  Hammer 
published  a  translation  of  Hafis’  ‘  Divan  ’  or  Collection  of  poems. 
This  gave  Goethe  the  idea  for  his  ‘ Divan  ’  which  he  began  in  1814  and 
published  in  1819.  The  poems  are  arranged  accord-  Qoethe’s 
ing  to  a  definite  order  in  twelve  books,  and  soar  from  « West- 
earthly  love,  hatred  and  enjoyment  to  the  heights  of  ostlieher 
Paradise.  At  the  end  there  are  some  short  elucida-  Dlvan- 
tory  essays,  embracing  a  wide  field  of  reflection.  The  whole  work 
is,  one  might  almost  say,  phenomenal,  so  deep  and  suggestive  are 
the  poet’s  thoughts.  The  Biblical  writings  which  were  the  first 
foundation  of  his  culture  drew  him  to  the  East,  and  the  sacred 
figures  which  he  used  to  approach  half  with  awe-struck  reverence, 
half  with  the  unhesitating  familiarity  of  Hans  Sachs,  rose  up  before 
him  in  this  work  in  gigantic  proportions.  Goethe  here  ventures  to 
link  the  most  sublime  conceptions  directly  with  matters  of  love,  with 
the  sadness  of  parting  and  the  joy  of  meeting  again.  The  songs  ex¬ 
changed  with  Suleika  and  the  dialogues  with  the  cup-bearer,  intro¬ 
duce  an  element  of  dramatic  life  into  the  midst  of  those  wide,  silent 
spaces  into  which  the  poet  leads  us.  Goethe  pretends  to  be  taking 
refuge  in  the  East  from  a  world  in  which  c  thrones  are  falling, 
kingdoms  trembling;’  but  in  this  eastern  world  it  is  the  analogies 
with  the  West  which  attract  him,  and  while  calling  himself  a  fugi¬ 
tive  he  really  never  leaves  home.  The  celebrated  wine  of  18 11 
refreshes  him.  He  introduces  Napoleon’s  Russian  campaign  in  a 
significant  connection.  He  does  homage  to  his  duke  who  was 
one  of  the  commanders  in  the  allied  army,  and  to  a  certain  lady, 
by  whom  he  probably  means  his  own  wife.  He  tells  his  nation  the 
truth  in  plain-spoken  terms,  and  distinctly  declares  that  his  business 
is  not  politics,  but  the  moral  and  literary  culture  of  the  people.  He 


VOL.  11. 


274 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


reproaches  the  Germans  for  their  attachment  to  the  fashions  of  the 
day,  and  tells  them  that  Teutomania  is  as  bad  as  Gallomania.  He 
stigmatises  their  meagre  capacity  for  recognizing  true  merit,  their 
envy,  their  grudging  approval,  all  that  he  had  himself  experienced. 
He  calls  the  attention  of  the  critics  to  the  one  thing  needful:  Respect 
for  the  man  who  understands  his  metier ,  and  a  thorough  understand¬ 
ing  of  the  purposes  of  the  author  before  attempting  to  blame  him. 
The  foreign  dress  is  throughout  but  a  slight  disguise ;  the  style  of 
Persian  poetry  is  imitated,  but  never  too  slavishly,  by  pregnant 
sayings  and  surprising  combinations ;  the  Oriental  element  pene¬ 
trates  the  Western  element  like  a  rare  perfume,  without  altering  it 
in  substance.  Islamism  is  assumed  to  be  the  dominant  religion, 
but  behind  it  there  appears  the  old  Persian  Nature-worship,  just  as 
Goethe’s  Pantheism  appears  behind  Christianity;  and  we  are  re¬ 
minded  of  Goethe’s  own  chastening  through  hard  service,  when  we 
find  him  sympathising  with  the  purity  of  the  old  Persians  which 
sprang  from  their  sun-worship,  and  putting  these  words  into  the 
mouth  of  a  religious  man  on  his  death-bed  : — 


fUnd  nun  sei  ein  heiliges  Vermachtniss 
BrLideriichem  Wollen  und  Gedachtniss: 
Schwerer  Dienste  tagliche  Bewahrung, 
Sonst  bedarf  es  keiner  Offenbarung.’ 


In  later  years  Goethe  made  some  additions  to  the  ‘Divan,’  among 
Later  them,  the  charming  dialogues  between  the  poet  and  the 
additions  Houri,  in  which  he  demands  an  entry  into  Paradise,  and 
to  the  brings  forward  this  reason  for  his  claim:  ‘Fori  have  been 
Divan.  a  mallj  an(j  that  means  I  have  struggled.’  In  these  later 
poems,  too,  he  develops  the  thought  which  he  had  expressed  in  the 
opening  poem  of  his  ‘Divan  ’ — ‘  That  poet’s  words  float  ever  round 
the  gate  of  Paradise,  gently  knocking  for  entrance,  and  praying  for 
eternal  life/  But  side  by  side  with  the  ‘  Divan  ’  Goethe  also  pro¬ 
duced  at  this  time  poems  free  from  the  Oriental  masque,  and  which 
affect  us  with  the  strong  thrill  of  reality.  The  relation  to  Suleika 
represented  a  friendship  which  might  venture  to  dally  with  the 
semblance  of  love.  But  in  the  summer  of  1823,  the  old  man  was 
once  more  the  victim  of  a  deep  passion,  which  overpowered  his 


Lyric  Poetry. 


Ch.  XIII.] 


275 


whole  being,  and  the  memory  of  which  he  enshrined  for  pos¬ 
terity  in  the  Marienbad  ‘  Elegy,’  the  most  complete  ,  Trilogie 
love-poem  that  we  have  from  his  pen.  It  occu-  der 
pies  the  middle  place  in  the  so-called  ‘Trilogy  of  Pas-  Leiden- 

sion.’  There  are  a  few  rather  obscure  passages  in  it,  schaft* 
as  in  the  *  Divan/  but  to  the  appreciative  mind  it  is  a  priceless 
poem,  drawing  tears  to  the  eyes,  yet  soothing  grief.  Here,  too,  love 
is  linked  with  the  highest  religious  and  moral  thoughts ;  we  have  a 
characterization  of  the  beloved  one,  scenes  from  the  life  of  love, 
outward  and  inward  incident,  now  memory  of  the  past,  now  a 
picture  of  the  present ;  observation  of  nature  and  emotions  of  the 
heart,  individual  and  typical  elements  are  marvellously  blended,  and 
this  mysterious  yet  lucid  poem  is  artistically  completed  by  two 
others,  which  raise  the  whole  Trilogy  to  a  more  ideal  level,  and 
allow  the  discord  to  resolve  itself  into  a  final  harmony. 

Reflection  becomes  old  age  better  than  love ;  and  so  in  later 
years  Goethe  produced  numerous  aphorisms  like  those  with  which 
the  ‘Divan’  is  so  richly  stored.  These  sayings,  para-  Goethe’s 
bolical,  epigrammatical,  or  gnomic,  were  the  last  results  Aphorisms, 
of  Goethe’s  thinking,  and  are  full  of  deep  wisdom,  constituting  the 
final  outcome  of  his  poetry  just  as  the  maxims  and  reflections  do 
of  his  prose. 

All  the  authors  around  Goethe  were  more  or  less  directly  in¬ 
fluenced  by  and  indebted  to  him.  Thus  the  ‘  Divan  ’  exercised  a 

great  power  both  over  Riickert  and  Platen.  Riickert’s 
_  1  t>  ,  1  •  „  Ruckert 

Ostliche  Rosen  appeared  in  1822,  Platens  first  (1738-1866) 

‘  Ghaselen  ’  in  1821.  Both  these  writers  imitated  the  and 

Persian  form  of  the  Ghasel  more  closely  than  Platen 
_  ,  ^  ,  ,  ,  ,  .  r  (1796-1835). 

Goethe.  Both  brought  the  outward  poetic  form  to 

the  highest  perfection,  but  with  this  difference — that  Ruckert 

improvised,  while  Platen  filed  and  polished ;  in  Ruckert,  therefore, 

as  in  Tieck,  we  often  find  a  want  of  artistic  completeness,  whereas 

with  Platen  this  is  never  the  case.  Friedrich  Ruckert  lived  from  1788 

to  1866,  Count  Platen  from  1796  to  1835.  They  were  both 

Franconians,  Ruckert  being  born  at  Schweinfurt,  Platen  at  Ans- 

bach.  Rtickert’s  was  a  contented,  Platen’s  a  discontented  nature. 

Ruckert  lived  and  died  happily  in  his  own  country,  which  he 


t  2 


2/6 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


had  never  left  but  for  short  journeys ;  fortune  drove  Platen  to 
foreign  parts,  to  the  South,  where  he  lies  buried  in  Syracuse.  Of 
the  two  Riickert  was  by  temperament  an  idyllic  poet,  Platen  a 
satirist. 

Riickert  began  to  write  poetry  in  1807.  Like  other  poets  of 
the  time  he  loved  to  endow  Nature  with  life  and  personality,  but  it 
was  not  the  sublimer  aspects  of  nature  that  attracted  him  so 
much  as  the  trifling  details  of  domestic  life,  or  the  fancies  of 
Ruckert’s  legend  and  fairy-tale.  His  poetry  offers  frequent 
pc*3try.  parallels  between  nature  and  the  inner  life,  supplying 
the  germs  for  parables.  His  chief  faults  are  :  first,  the  somewhat 
doubtful  taste  with  which  he  introduces  into  his  lyric  poetry 
witticisms,  reflections,  and  many  ideas  and  forms  of  expression 
only  fit  for  prose ;  and  secondly,  his  excessive  accumulation  of 
metaphors.  We  can  understand  why  eastern  poets  were  such 
congenial  models  to  Riickert,  for  their  imagination,  as  Goethe 
says,  could  make  anything  suggest  anything  else  in  heaven  or 
earth;  they  are  accustomed  to  link  ideas  together  that  have  no 
kinship  with  one  another,  and  they  have  no  power  of  distinguish¬ 
ing  the  suitable  from  the  unsuitable,  in  consequence  of  which  their 
poems  have  a  patchwork  look,  as  if  anything  had  been  put  down 
which  fitted  in  with  the  rhyme. 

Shortly  after  Riickert  had  published  his  ‘  Eastern  Roses,’  he 
described  in  ‘Love’s  Spring’  the  feelings  of  his  own  time  of  court- 
His  ship.  This  collection  of  350  poems  contains  a  few 
'Liebes-  really  touching  strains  full  of  deep  emotion,  and  a  few 
fruhling.  enthusiastic  and  hyperbolical  songs  written  in  the 
strong  rush  of  exalted  feeling,  and  heaping  all  possible  virtues  and 
graces  on  his  beloved  ;  but  with  the  exception  of  these  the  book  con¬ 
tains  nothing  but  empty  verbiage  and  rhymed  jingle,  such  as  we  find 
in  many  of  the  Minnesingers  of  the  thirteenth  century.  The  cycle 
His  of  sonnets  entitled  ‘Amaryllis’  impresses  us  much 
*  Amaryllis.’  more  favourably  as  a  whole ;  they  were  written  in  the 
summer  of  1812,  and  were  inspired  by  a  capricious  innkeeper’s 
daughter,  whose  real  name  was  Marielies.  Here  we  find  what  we 
miss  so  much  in  ‘  Love’s  Spring/  namely,  dramatic  scene  and 
action,  life-like  characterization  of  the  beloved  one,  in  a  word,  fact 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Lyric  Poetry. 


277 


Platen. 


and  reality  instead  of  mere  lyrical  effusion,  artistic  power  as  well 
as  depth  of  emotion.  Riickert’s  best  poems  are  some  of  his 
shortest,  some  of  the  Siciliennes,  Ritornelles  and  Quatrains  ap¬ 
pended  to  his  ‘  Amaryllis ;  ’  the  somewhat  limited  scope  of  these 
forms  ensured  artistic  perfection. 

Riickert  established  his  poetic  fancy  in  the  Eastern  land  of 
marvels,  and  never  tired  of  making  translations  and  versions  of 
Eastern  poems,  and  of  presenting  his  own  philosophy  in  poetic 
form  as  ‘  The  Wisdom  of  the  Brahman/  Platen,  on 
the  contrary,  made  few  excursions  into  the  realms  of 
Eastern  poetry.  Besides  the  modern  rhymed  stanzas  he,  like 
Klopstock,  employed  classical  metres  and  completely  mastered 
some  of  the  most  difficult  of  them.  The  smallest  poems  that  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  his  pen  bear,  if  not  in  their  . first,  yet  always  in  their 
last  form,  the  stamp  of  perfection.  He  is  always  guided  by  good 
taste  except  in  those  passages  in  his  poems  where  he  speaks  of 
himself.  He  was  so  hardy  as  to  try  to  compete  with  Goethe  in 
the  province  of  lyric  poetry,  and  indeed  he  is  worthy  to  be  measured 
by  the  same  standard  as  Goethe,  though  he  has  nowhere  attained 
to  Goethe’s  perfection.  He  has  nowhere  touched  the  inmost 
secrets  of  the  heart  which  Goethe  so  often  reveals  with  such  magic 
power.  None  of  his  poems-stir  our  soul  to  its  depths  except  per¬ 
haps  the  short  one  beginning  :  ‘  Die  Liebe  hat  gelogen/  Platen’s 
lyric  poetry  is  not  rich  in  action,  and  even  his  ballads  for  the  most 
part  only  set  forth  a  single  situation.  Pictures  of  country  and 
town  he  has  drawn  with  masterly  skill,  but  he  is  deficient  in  loving 
sympathy  with  human  existence  as  it  is.  He  some¬ 
times  reminds  us  of  Schiller’s  pessimistic  satirical 
humour,  as  when  we  find  him  declaring  poetry  to  be  the  counter¬ 
part  of  discordant  reality.  Pie  shows  his  strength  most  in  angry 
or  scornful  attack,  whether  on  Napoleon  or  Russia,  whether  on 
the  Jesuits  or  on  the  Illuminati,  whether  on  the  taste  of  the  pre¬ 
vious  century  or  on  Romanticism.  His  anti-romantic  comedies 
(see  p.  306)  are  full  of  powerful  characters,  creations  of  his  hatred 
and  contempt. 

It  was  no  wonder  that  Platen,  as  an  enemy  of  Romanticism, 
counted  among  his  opponents  the  railing  spirit  of  Heinrich  Heine. 


His  satire. 


278 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Heine  was  born  in  1799  in  Diisseldorf.  He  studied  in  Bonn  under 
Wilhelm  Schlegel,  whom  he  glorified  in  sonnets  just 
as,  at  an  earlier  date,  Wilhelm  Schlegel  himself  had 
sung  the  praises  of  Burger.  Heine  was  a  thorough  Romanticist. 
He  modelled  his  first  poems  of  1822  on  the  old  Minnesongs,  as  is 
shown  by  the  frequent  archaisms  they  contain.  He  transported 
himself  into  mediaeval  times,  and  praised  the  Rhine  like  Schen- 
kendorf.  Me  wrote  sentimental  romances  of  that  superficial  kind 
which  Uhland  had  quickly  laid  aside.  He  loved  to  speak  of  death 
like  Justinus  Kerner,  and  was  in  all  respects  one  of  those  poets  of 
‘  Weltschmerz  ’  and  moral  laxity  who  worshipped  Lord  Byron  as 
their  spiritual  father,  and  who  soon  became  the  fashion  throughout 
Europe.  In  this  respect,  too,  Heine  was  faithful  to  the  traditions  of 
the  older  Romanticists. 

Like  Brentano,  Uhland,  Eichendorff  and  Wilhelm  Muller,  Heine 
studied  the  popular  songs,  and  the  ‘  Wunderhorn  ’  was  the  basis 
of  his  poetic  culture  as  it  had  been  of  theirs.  He  never  tried  his 
hand  at  classical,  rhymeless,  rhythmically  strict  metres ;  he  bor¬ 
rowed  from  the  popular  songs  the  somewhat  careless  metrical  form 
as  well  as  the  vivid  dramatic  colouring  which  contrasts  so  strongly 
with  Platen’s  delicate  and  refined  drawing.  He  never  assumed  a  fic¬ 
titious  character  in  his  poems  as  Uhland,  Muller  and  Platen  so  often 
Heine  and  did,  but  as  a  rule  communicated  to  his  readers  his 
Brentano  own  feelings  and  experiences  in  his  own  person.  He 
compared.  perpapS  m0st  closely  akin  to  Clemens  Brentano, 
from  whom  he  is  chiefly  distinguished  by  this,  that  he  understands 
what  is  effective,  and  is  deterred  by  no  scruple  of  shame  from  pro¬ 
ducing  the  effect  which  he  wishes.  He  always  keeps  in  view  his 
audience,  to  whose  noble  or  lotv  instincts,  as  it  may  be,  he  wishes 
to  appeal.  Brentano,  on  the  contrary,  wrote  first  and  foremost  for 
his  own  satisfaction.  There  is  nothing  which  exemplifies  more 
clearly  the  increased  literary  skill  of  the  later  Romantic  School  than 
Heine’s  song  of  the  ‘  Loreley.’  This  story  of  the  fair  enchantress 
on  the  Rhine  is  not  really  a  popular  legend,  but  was  created  by 
Brentano,  who  first  brought  it  before  the  public  in  1802  in  the  form 
of  a  ballad  inserted  in  a  novel  and  beginning : — £  Zu  Bacherach  am 
Rheine.’  Heine  took  hold  of  the  theme,  and  in  six  verses  worked 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Lyric  Poetry. 


279 


it  up  into  a  complete  epic  and  lyric  whole.  These  stanzas,  set  to  a 
sentimental  melody,  have  established  themselves  as  a  popular  song, 
and  thus  Heine  by  a  bit  of  skilful  manipulation  reaped  what  Bren- 
tano  had  sown.  Like  Brentano,  Heine  was  intended  to  go  into 
business,  but  unable  to  endure  the  life,  he  soon,  though  without 
having  pursued  any  regular  studies,  devoted  himself  exclusively  to 
poetry.  With  Heine  as  with  Brentano  the  contrast  between  the 
prose  of  business-interests  and  the  inner  life  of  imagination,  the 
sharp  collision  of  the  finite  with  the  infinite,  seems  to  have  exercised 
a  marked  influence  on  his  whole  character  as  a  man  and  as  a  poet. 
Like  Brentano  he  created  for  himself  a  fabulous  world  out  of 
materials  partly  derived  from  his  own  experience  and  partly  invented. 
Brentano  had  already  set  the  example  of  lying  unscrupulously  in 
his  conversation  and  in  letters  for  the  sake  of  producing  a  comic 
effect,  and  Heine  found  in  such  lying  a  favourite  and  infallible 
method  of  conducting  public  controversy.  Again,  Heine  loves  to 
destroy  by  a  jest  the  sentimental  mood  which  he  has  excited,  and 
seems  even  to  mock  at  his  own  emotion ;  and  this  feature,  too,  is  to 
be  found  in  Brentano,  who,  for  instance,  would  end  a  solemn  hymn 
to  the  gods  with  the  confession,  ‘  Know  that  I’m  hungry/  or  who, 
as  Tieck  narrates,  loved  to  move  women  to  tears  by  remorseful 
self-accusations,  and  would  then  laugh  at  them  as  c  geese '  for  be¬ 
lieving  all  he  said.  But  in  this  Heine  was  only  pursuing  to  its 
last  results  a  principle  of  Romanticism  which  had  originated  in 
the  previous  century.  Since  Addison  and  others,  Socrates  had 
been  an  ideal  of  European  authors,  and  Socratic  irony  irony  of 
an  object  of  their  aspiration.  Authors  would  treat  Heine, 
their  heroes  with  a  kind  of  smiling  superiority,  and  loved  in  par¬ 
ticular  to  affect  the  superior  wisdom  of  the  man  of  the  world  who 
has  outgrown  the  extravagant  ideals  of  youth.  Friedrich  Schlegel 
discovered  irony  in  Goethe’s  1  Wilhelm  Meister/  and  demanded 
irony  of  every  perfect  poet :  this  irony  he  sometimes  defined  as 
analogous  to  the  Socratic  mingling  of  jest  and  earnest,  sometimes 
as  a  ‘  constant  self-parody,’  sometimes  as  a  ‘  transcendental  buf¬ 
foonery,’  sometimes  as  ‘  the  clear  consciousness  which  abides  amid 
the  perpetual  flux  of  ever-brimming  chaos.’  This  ideal  of  self¬ 
parody  was  realised  by  the  Romanticists  and  established  itself 


28o 


Romanticism, . 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Accounts 
of  travels. 

Goethe, 
G.  Jacobi. 


firmly  in  the  humorous  literature  of  the  time ;  but  by  no  one  was 
it  so  consistently  pursued  as  by  Heinrich  Heine.  Even  to  his  most 
serious  poems  he  will  give  such  a  sudden  and  exaggerated  turn, 
that  innocent  souls,  who  take  him  seriously,  will  be  all  the  more 
deeply  affected,  while  the  less  innocent  think  they  hear  an  aside  of 
superior  intelligence  whispering :  ‘  stupid  geese  to  believe  all  I  say/ 
The  humanistic  poets  of  the  sixteenth  century  were  fond  of 
writing  poetical  descriptions  of  travels.  In  the  eigh¬ 
teenth  century  Laurence  Sterne’s  ‘Sentimental  Journey’ 
was  much  admired  and  imitated,  and  furnished  German 
lyric  poets  in  particular  with  a  convenient  device  for 
connecting  their  personal  feelings  with  outward  objects  and  trivial 
incidents.  Between  these  narratives  after  the  manner  of  Sterne,  and 
the  scientific  accounts  of  travels  penned  by  an  Alexander  von 
Humboldt  and  his  predecessors  and  successors,  there  are  many 
grades,  and  German  writers  ranged  up  and  down  the  whole  scale, 
from  the  most  extreme  subjectivity  to  the  strictest  objectivity.  In 
Goethe’s  records  of  his  two  Swiss  journeys  taken,  the  one  in  1775, 
the  other  in  1779  (see  p.  161),  we  have  both  extremes  conjoined. 
The  lyric  poet,  Georg  Jacobi,  copied  Sterne  in  a  *  Summer  Journey’ 
and  a  ‘  Winter  Journey.’  Fritz  Stolberg  published  ‘  Travels  in  Ger¬ 
many,  Switzerland,  Italy,  and  Sicily/  Moritz  August 
I^,Stolber,e’  von  Thiimmel,  the  author  of  ‘  Wilhelmine/  wrote  a 
very  entertaining  and  enlightened  account  of  a  ‘Journey 
in  the  southern  provinces  of  France/  Ernst  Moriz 
Arndt  repeatedly  published  narratives  of  his  many 
journeys  and  wanderings.  In  the  beginning  of  the 
century  Gottfried  Seume  described  his  ‘Tour  to  Syra¬ 
cuse.’  Justinus  Kerner  delighted  his  friends  by  his  highly  original 
‘  Reiseschatten  von  dem  Schattenspieler  Luchs.’  Adalbert  von 
Chamisso  described  his  journey  round  the  world  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  man  of  science  and  of  the  poet.  Matthison,  Baggesen, 
Tieck,  Wilhelm  Muller  and  Platen,  all  produced  memorials  in 
Heine’s  poetry  or  prose  of  various  journeys  to  Switzerland 
‘  Reise-  and  Italy.  Heine  followed  with  his  ‘  Reisebilder,’ 
biider.  which  appeared  from  1826  to  1831,  and  had  an  ex¬ 
traordinary  success.  In  this  book  the  genuine  descriptions  of 


Thiimmel, 

Arndt, 

Seume, 

Kerner, 

Chamisso, 

etc. 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Lyric  Poetry. 


28t 


scenery,  and  above  all  the  North  Sea  pictures  sometimes  reveal 
a  real  power  of  observation  and  expression,  at  other  times  a 
grotesque  mythologising  fancy.  In  the  rest  of  the  book,  however, 
and  particularly  in  the  much  admired  section  on  Italy,  we  have 
not  much  more  than  an  imitation  of  Sterne’s  ‘  Sentimental 
Journey.’  There  is  the  same  cobweb  of  individualism  spun  over 
external  objects,  the  same  political  gossip  of  the  emptiest  nature, 
along  with  a  poetic  conception  of  the  world  almost  as  meagre 
as  Klopstock’s,  and  reiterated  till  we  are  tired  of  it.  The  real  is 
tricked  out  with  or  supplanted  by  the  unreal,  lifeless  things  are 
represented  as  animated,  living  things  imagined  as  dead,  while 
dreams  and  reality  are  indistinguishably  mingled ;  the  poet  and 
nature  reflect  each  other  ;  a  spirit  of  melancholy  pervades  all 
things,  and  is  revealed  particularly  in  black  eyes.  These  flowers 
have  no  fragrance  for  us ;  they  are,  as  it  were,  faded  after  a  night  of 
revelry.  The  filth  alone,  of  which  there  is  enough  in  the  ‘  Pictures 
of  Travel,’  is  as  filthy  as  ever  it  was.  What  a  contrast  have  we 
in  this  book  of  Heine’s  with  the  calm,  pure  outlook  maintained  by 
Goethe  as  he  journeyed  through  Italy  ! 

Still  the  names  of  Goethe  and  Heine  must  always  be  mentioned 
together  in  connection  with  German  lyric  poetry.  Heine  is  one 
of  the  most  fruitful  among  German  song-writers,  Heine’s 
and  among  those  who  came  after  Goethe  he  may  Lyrics, 
perhaps  claim  the  first  place  as  the  poet  who  bears,  as  no  other 
ever  bore,  a  laughing  tear  in  his  scutcheon.  His  peculiar  power 
lay  in  the  blending  of  elegy  with  jest  and  satire,  and  his  influence 
on  the  whole  of  Europe  is  not  yet  exhausted.  Much  that  he 
produced  till  1856,  the  year  of  his  death,  lies  outside  the  range 
of  the  present  work.  It  should  be  remarked,  however,  that  the 
wonderful  fertility  and  variety  of  modern  German  lyric  poetry  were 
not  yet  exhausted  even  with  him  ;  but  with  later  poets,  dead  as 
well  as  living,  we  are  not  now  concerned. 

The  song  develops  its  full  power  only  when  set  Songs  set 

to  music.  Modern  German  lyric  poetry,  from  its  first  _?°  ™usic' 

J  1  J  7  Beethoven 

beginnings  in  the  previous  century,  had  been  ac-  and 
companied  and  fostered  by  music.  Beethoven,  and  Schubert, 
still  more  Schubert,  have  done  much  to  immortalise  by  their 


28a 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


melodies  the  best  German  songs.  Schubert,  in  his  brief  life, 
displayed  an  unequalled  gift  of  sympathy  with  all  the  moods 
and  emotions  which  ever  stirred  either  Goethe  or  any  other  song¬ 
writer.  Yet  even  he  was  far  from  exhausting  the  whole  treasure 
of  German  lyric  poetry;  contemporary  with  him  and  after  him 
there  arose  a  great  number  of  song-composers,  and  the  lesser 
masters  were  often  successful  in  creating  the  most  popular  songs. 


Narrative  Writing. 


The  development  of  the  epic  and  the  drama  down  to  the  date 
of  Goethe’s  death  is  not  so  striking  as  that  of  lyric  poetry.  In 
both  these  provinces  comparatively  few  great  works  of  art  were 
produced,  though  both  furnished  characteristic  and  important 
creations.  In  the  province  of  romance  we  have  Jean  Paul,  in  that 
of  the  drama  Heinrich  von  Ivleist  and  Grillparzer. 

The  art  of  narrative  rose  in  the  course  of  the  eighteenth  cen¬ 
tury,  both  in  matter  and  form,  from  the  level  of  prose  to  that  of 
poetry ;  in  the  nineteenth  it  sank  for  the  time  again  into  prose. 
Subsequently  to  Hagedorn  and  Gellert,  German  poets  had  learned 
how  to  narrate  by  writing  fables  and  short  tales  in  verse.  These 
smaller  essays  in  narrative  poetry  prepared  the  way 
for  the  true  epic ;  Klopstock  introduced  the  religious, 
Wieland  the  purely  imaginative  epic.  Klopstock’s 
sonorous  hexameters  found  many  imitators,  and  the 
example  of  Voss  and  Goethe  turned  the  attention  of 
many  to  the  fruitful  field  of  the  idyll,  to  the  trivial 
incidents  of  everyday  life  among  the  people.  Wie- 
land’s  stanzas  likewise  called  forth  imitations;  the  chivalrous 
romances  of  the  Middle-Ages  supplied  both  him  and  his  followers 
with  suitable  materials,  and  in  the  somewhat  effeminate  years  of 
the  second  decade  of  this  century  the  smooth  verses 
of  Ernst  Schulze’s  ‘  Bezauberte  Rose  ’  won  great 
though  not  lasting  fame.  In  Aloys  Blumauer’s ‘Ad¬ 
ventures  of  the  pious  Aeneas’  (1784),  the  humorous 
and  popular  romance  of  the  previous  century,  which 
preceded  the  rise  of  the  ballad,  appears  raised  to 
the  level  of  the  mock-heroic  poem.  About  the  same  time  appeared 


Develop¬ 
ment  of 
narrative 
writing 
from  the 
end  of  18th 
century. 


Blumauer’s 
travestied 
Aeneid, 
and  Kor- 
tum’s 
*  Jobsiad.’ 


Ch.XIIL] 


Narrative  Writing . 


283 


Arnim. 
Immer- 
mann’s 
‘  Tulifant- 
chen.’ 
Platen’s 
Abassid.es.’ 


Kortum’s  celebrated  ‘Jobsiad,’  which  with  its  doggerel  verses, 
its  intentionally  wooden  style  and  rude  woodcuts,  was  meant  as 
a  parody  of  the  popular  literature  and  the  style  of  Hans  Sachs, 
which  Goethe  and  Wieland  had  tried  to  revive  in  a  more  serious 
spirit.  Herder  in  his  ‘  popular  songs'  had  introduced  into  German 
literature  a  few  most  beautiful  serious  Spanish  romances,  and  in 
his  romances  of  the  ‘Cid’  he  passed  on  to  an  epic 
in  detached  songs.  Clemens  Brentano  meant  to  pro-  Brentano  s 
duce  a  work  of  the  same  kind  in  his  grandly  con-  kranz  * 
ceived  but  unfinished  romances,  entitled  the  ‘  Wreath 
of  Roses.'  The  happy  thought  struck  Arnim  of  applying  the 
grandiloquent  tone  of  the  Spanish  Romances  to  comic 
subjects,  and  Immermann  followed  his  example  in 
his  ‘  Tulifantchen.'  Platen’s  legendary  epic  of  the 
‘Abassides’  revived  the  five-footed  trochees  of  the 
Servian  popular  songs  which  Goethe  had  transplanted 
into  German  poetry,  and  also  the  influence  of  Ariosto, 
to  whom  Wieland  owed  so  much.  Rtickert’s  ‘  Nal 
und  Damajanti’  is  written  in  short  freely-rhymed  couplets.  It  is 
a  small  episode  from  the  great  Indian  Epic,  just  as  his  ‘Rostem  und 
Suhrab’  was  an  episode  from  the  Persian  epic  of  Firdusi.  nuckert 
Simrock  treated  the  old  German  hero-legend  of  and 
Wieland  the  smith  in  a  poem  written  in  the  Nibe-  Simrock. 
lungen  stanza,  which  Tieck  and  Uhland  had  applied  to  the  ballad. 
The  life  of  Christ,  which  in  Klopstock’s  ‘  Messiah’  had  formed  the 
beginning  of  the  modern  German  epic,  was  worked  up  by  Riickert 
into  a-  rhymed  harmony  of  the  Gospels,  a  monotonous  and  lifeless 
work,  which  can  only  be  compared  to  the  rhymed  Bible  para¬ 
phrases  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Almost  all  forms  of  the  epic 
were  thus  gradually  worked  out ;  but  there  was  nothing  that  came 
up  to  Wieland’s  ‘  Oberon,’  to  ‘  Goethe’s  ‘  Hermann  und  Dorothea,’ 
or  to  Herder’s  ‘Cid;’  only  Homer  and  the  newly-revived  Niben- 
lungenlied  could  be  compared  with  these  master-pieces. 

The  favour  of  the  general  reading  public  was  bestowed  now  as 
previously  on  novels,  which  as  a  rule  met  with  imme-  Novel- 

diate  but  ephemeral  success.  They  appeared  before  writing, 

the  modern  epic,  and  continued  to  exist  side  by  side  with  it,  till  its 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


284 


decline  in  popularity  still  more  strengthened  their  hold  on  the  public 
mind.  But  the  novels  of  this  period  were  entirely  dominated  by 
fashion,  and  their  authors  could  seldom  adapt  themselves  to  more 
than  one  style  of  writing.  Many-sided  epic  creation  such  as  we  find 
in  Wieland  or  Goethe,  is  unparalleled  among  the  other  authors  of 
this  time  ;  even  Wieland  returned  in  later  years  to  the  class  of 
half-historical,  half-didactic  novel,  of  which  his  ‘Agathon’  had  been 
so  successful  an  example,  but  he  did  not  repeat  his  early  triumphs. 
Most  of  the  novel-writers  were  the  slaves  of  a  single  manner  and 
style  which  they  followed  more  or  less  mechanically  in  all  their 
works.  Hence,  after  first  successes  their  popularity  died  away. 

Wieland’s  ‘  Agathon,’  with  its  mixture  of  philosophic  and  epic,  of 
Influence  of  historical  and  fictitious  elements,  was  quite  a  new  phe- 
Wieland’s  nomenon  in  modern  literature.  Xenophon’s  Romance 
*  A£athon-  about  Cyrus  was  the  only  thing  like  it  in  the  whole  of 
literature.  Through  ‘Agathon’  the  novel  generally  was  raised 
from  the  sphere  of  mere  light  literature,  and  in  a  measure  en¬ 
nobled.  ‘  This  is/  said  Lessing,  ‘  the  first  and  only  novel  for  the 
thinking  mind  of  classical  taste.’  Goethe’s  ‘  Wilhelm  Meister,’  which 
was  written  under  the  influence  of  ‘Agathon,’  brought  back  the 
philosophical  romance  into  the  domain  of  German  life.  Both 
‘  Agathon  ’  and  ‘  Meister  ’  deal  more  with  the  history  of  a  human 
soul  than  with  varied  outward  incident,  and  thus  testify  to  the  im¬ 
portance  assigned  to  the  inner  life  in  modern  German  literature. 
Not  but  what  even  in  the  earlier  romance  of  ‘  Simplicissimus,’  full  as 
it  is  of  incident,  the  inward  development  of  the  hero  was  quite  left 
out  of  sight.  ‘  Simplicissimus/  ‘  Agathon,’  and  ‘  Wilhelm  Meister,’ 
have  likewise  in  common  the  semi-autobiographical  character. 
Many  of  these  feigned  autobiographies  were  produced  in  the  last 
„  .  ,  century ;  we  will  only  mention  ‘  Anton  Reiser/  by 

‘Anton  Karl  Philipp  Moritz,  which  came  out  between  1785 

Reiser’  and  1790;  it  is  entitled  a  psychological  romance, 
(1785  1790).  an(j  -j.  afforcjs  us  a  most  interesting  glimpse  into  the 

labyrinth  of  a  German  mind  during  the  Storm  and  Stress  period. 

If  we  leave  out  of  consideration  the  romances  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  Wieland’s  ‘Agathon’  was  really  the  foundation  of  the 
historical  novel  in  Germany.  Novel-writers  at  the  first  confined 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Narrative  Writing. 


285 


themselves  to  classical  antiquity,  but  soon  the  Middle  Ages  were 

also  drawn  upon,  and  chivalrous  romances  were  classical 

produced  such  as  had  been  started  some  time  before  and 

in  France,  and  had  come  into  favour  in  Germany  chivalrous 

through  Goethe’s  ‘  Gotz.’  In  the  nineteenth  century  romances- 

Fouqud  gave  to  this  class  of  writing  a  specifically  northern  and 

pious  colouring.  Yet  there  was  always  something  arbitrary  about 

this  foreign  costume;  the  manners  of  older  times  were  painted 

from  very  slight  knowledge,  and  truth  was  entirely  sacrificed  to 

effect.  Achim  von  Arnim  alone,  in  his  unfinished  .  .  , 

Arnim  s 

novel,  ‘The  Guardians  of  the  Crown’  (1817),  com-  ‘Kronen- 
bined  real  knowledge  of  the  Reformation  period  wachter’ 
with  graphic  power,  and,  it  must  be  added,  with  his  C181?)- 
usual  formlessness  and  exuberant  fancy.  It  was  Walter  Scott’s  great 
example  which  in  the  second  decade  of  this  century  first  made 
conscientious  faithfulness  and  study  of  details  the  rule  in  historical 
novel-writing,  and  rendered  this  class  of  literature  capable  of  rival¬ 
ling  and  even  anticipating  the  history  of  civilisation.  Wilhelm  HaufFs 
‘  Lichtenstein,’  like  Uhland’s  Swabian  ballads,  reflected  the  local 
patriotism  of  Wiirtemberg,  and  showed  a  sympathetic  appreciation 
of  the  national  past.  A  few  years  later  Willibald  Alexis,  of  Breslau, 
devoted  his  attention  with  great  success  to  the  history  of  Branden¬ 
burg  and  Prussia,  and  even  revealed  certain  modest  charms  in  the 
uninteresting  scenery  of  that  province. 

Ulrich  Hegner  of  Winterthur  had,  as  early  as  1814,  drawn  his 
materials  from  contemporary  life,  and  in  his  novel,  uegner’s 
‘  Salys’  days  of  Revolution,’  had  described  the  first  be-  *  Saiys’  Be¬ 
ginnings  of  the  Swiss  Revolution ;  the  plan  of  the  volutions- 
book  was  excellent,  but  he  showed  little  skill  in  develop-  tage  ^1814)- 
ment,  though  on  the  whole  the  narrative  is  interesting  and  pleasing. 
In  Holderlin’s  ‘  Hyperion,’  a  master-piece  of  German  prose  pro¬ 
duced  between  1797  and  1799,  the  scene  is  likewise  Holderlin’s 
laid  in  the  immediate  past,  in  modern  Greece;  the  ‘Hyperion,’ 
individual  tendencies  of  the  author  preponderate  1797-99. 
over  the  historical  elements,  and  the  Greece  here  described  is 
really,  as  in  ‘  Agathon,’  the  ideal  land  of  German  longing  and  the 
home  of  classical  culture. 


286 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Imitations 
of  « Wil¬ 
helm 
Meister.’ 

Tieck, 

Schlegel, 

Novalis, 

Grimm, 

Eichendorff, 

Immer- 

mann. 


Goethe’s  { Wilhelm  Meister/  owing  to  the  long  period  devoted 
to  the  writing  of  it,  had  become  a  semi-historical  romance.  When 
it  finally  appeared  before  the  world  it  was  no  longer  a  picture  of 
present  circumstances,  but  of  an  age  which  was  already  passing 
away,  and  moreover  it  touched  very  little  on  events  of  public 
interest.  The  best  writers  could  hardly  hope  to  rival  this  work, 
however  much  the  most  highly  cultured  of  them,  who  scorned  to 
appeal  to  the  mere  instincts  of  the  masses,  might  feel  tempted  to  try 
and  imitate  it.  The  older  Romanticists  were  soon  in  the  field,  but 
were  none  of  them  successful.  In  ‘  Franz  Sternbald’s 
Wanderings/  by  Tieck,  the  author’s  intention  was  to 
accompany  a  pupil  of  Albert  Diirer’s  to  Rome  and 
back  again;  Friedrich  Schlegel’s  ‘Lucinde’  was  the 
audacious  production  of  a  dilettante  philosopher  devoid 
of  all  epic  talent;  Novalis,  in  his  ‘  Heinrich  von  Ofter- 
dingen/  returned  to  the  Middle  Ages  and  chose  a 
legendary  poet  as  his  hero.  With  Tieck  the  leading 
theme  was  to  be  painting,  with  Schlegel  it  was  to 
be  the  art  of  life,  with  Novalis  poetry,  just  as  the  stage  had 
been  the  chief  interest  for  a  considerable  portion  of  ‘Wilhelm 
Meister.’  Arnim’s  ‘  Grafin  Dolores,’  which  appeared  in  1810,  be¬ 
longs  in  another  sense  to  the  same  class  as  ‘  Wilhelm  Meister/  for 
it  gave  a  typical  picture  of  fashionable  society,  and  set  up  a  new 
ideal  of  the  true  nobleman.  ‘  Ahnung  und  Gegenwart/  by  Joseph 
von  Eichendorff  {1815),  reflects  the  spirit  of  general  depression 
which  prevailed  during  the  period  preceding  the  wars  of  Libera¬ 
tion  ;  the  hero,  a  nobleman  after  Arnim’s  pattern,  who  has  taken 
part  in  all  the  struggles  of  the  Tyrolese,  ends  by  going  into  a 
monastery,  while  his  dearest  friend  emigrates  to  America.  For 
this  work,  too,  ‘  Wilhelm  Meister  ’  evidently  furnished  the  model,  and 
the  same  influence  is  equally  apparent  in  Karl  Immermann’s 
‘Epigoni/  a  picture  of  the  author’s  own  times,  which  appeared 
in  1836,  four  years  after  Goethe’s  death.  It  was  not  till  he  wrote 
‘  Miinchhausen,’  (1838-1839),  that  Immermann  developed  his  free 
and  original  powers  as  an  author. 

Many  of  the  above-mentioned  novels,  ‘  Wilhelm  Meister  ’  not 
excepted,  embodied  a  distinct  purpose ;  they  were  meant  to  teach 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Narrative  Writing. 


287 


something,  to  prove  something,  to  impress  on  the  public  in  a 
popular  shape  some  general  moral  truth  or  doctrine.  Even  the 
chivalrous  romances  were  at  first  marked  by  a  somewhat  low  and 
narrow  ideal  of  Germanism,  a  spirit  of  rebellion  against  princes  and 
clergy,  which  owed  its  origin  to  the  time  of  the  literary  Revolution,  to 
‘  Gotz’  and  the  ‘Robbers/  Side  by  side  with  the  chivalrous  romances 
the  robber-romances  came  into  vogue,  and  about  the  Ghost- 

same  time  Schiller’s  1  Ghost-seer  ’  called  forth  the  stories, 

ghost-stories  and  stories  of  marvels.  All  powers  working  in  secret, 
the  Vehmgerichte ,  which  had  already  appeared  in  ‘  Gotz/  the 
secret  societies  which  had  played  a  part  in  ‘  Meister,’  became 
favourite  themes  with  the  novel  writers  of  the  time,  and  new  glory 
was  now  shed  on  the  time-honoured  creations  of  popular  super¬ 
stition,  the  ghosts  who  haunted  old  castles,  and  the  favourite  giants 
and  dwarfs,  nixies  and  water-maidens.  Generally  speaking,  these 
fabulous  creations  just  tickled  the  fancy  without  conveying  any 
moral.  Haller  and  Wieland,  however,  laid  the  scene  of  their 
specifically  didactic  novels  in  the  Eastern  land  of  marvels,  and 
others  followed  their  example.  The  didactic  novel  which  had 
flourished  so  luxuriantly  in  the  seventeenth  century,  was  yet  more 
congenial  to  the  spirit  of  the  age  of  enlightenment.  Didactic 
But  this  class  of  writing  soon  devoted  itself  to 
national,  local,  and  domestic  interests. 

In  1781  Pestalozzi  began  to  write  his  *  Lienhard  und 
Gertrud,’  in  which  his  own  noble,  loving,  and  pious 
nature  is  clearly  reflected.  The  book  is  pathetic  and  sincere  in 
tone,  a  true  people’s  book,  derived  from  faithful  observation  of  the 
life  of  the  peasantry,  surpassing  Rousseau’s  ‘  Emile  ’  on  the  one 
hand,  and  preparing  the  way  for  Peter  Hebei  and  the  later  village 
stories  on  the  other. 

The  didactic  novel  was  less  popular  in  the  nineteenth  century  than 
it  had  been  in  the  eighteenth.  The  artificial  form  and  the  lengthy 
discussions  no  longer  pleased  the  general  public,  and 
only  a  few  readers  preferred  to  learn  history  from  novel  writing  be- 
writers  rather  than  from  the  professional  historians,  comes  more 
Limits  were  set  to  sentimentality  and  humour,  nor  were  obJectlve- 
the  individual  tendenci  js  of  the  author  allowed  to  dominate  his  whole 


novels. 
Pestalozzi’s 
‘  Lienhard 
und 

Gertrud.* 


288 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Influence  of 
English, 
novelists. 


narrative.  More  importance  was  now  attached  to  the  creation  of 
lifelike  figures  than  to  revealing  the  personality,  however  inter¬ 
esting,  of  a  highly  gifted  and  sensitive  author.  Self-analysis  was 
free  to  reveal  itself  in  other  forms  of  literature,  but  it  was  resolved 
to  banish  it  from  the  novel.  In  the  interval  between  Richardson 
to  Jean  Paul,  however,  this  newer  view  of  the  scope  of  the  novel 
had  yet  to  establish  itself.  The  English  led  the 
f  ishion  in  novel-writing,  and  the  success  of  ‘  Robinson 
Crusoe  ’  was  but  the  first  of  a  Ion?  series  of  sue- 
cesses.  Richardson  started  the  sentimental  domestic  novel.  Field¬ 
ing  brought  down  Richardson’s  heroic  characters  to  a  more  human 
level.  Goldsmith  discovered  new  materials  and  motives  for  the  idyll. 
Sterne  carried  the  humorous  novel  to  its  furthest  extreme.  All  these 
writers  found  imitators  in  Germany,  and  only  the  immortal  greatness 
of ‘Don  Quixote’  could  hold  its  own  against  them. 

The  domestic  novel  occupied  the  same  place  in  the  epic  sphere  as 
Novels  of  the  middle-class  tragedy  did  in  the  drama.  It  made  a 
domestic  study  of  every-day  reality,  of  its  noble  feelings,  its  good 
llfe>  deeds,  its  fair  humanity,  but  also  of  its  misery,  vice  and 
vulgarity.  It  breathed  the  very  atmosphere  which  Schiller  ab¬ 
horred.  Its  purpose  was  not  to  elevate  but  to  be  affecting,  and  it 
awakened  pity  even  for  the  rogue.  ^There  was  one  sentimental 
novel  which  established  itself  as  a  classic,  and  that  was  Goethe’s 
‘  Werther.’  No  others,  so  far  as  German  literature  is  concerned, 
are  worth  mentioning. G Muller’s  ‘  Siegwart’  repels  us  now-a-days  in 
its  sentimental  parts,  and  such  interest  as  it  still  has 
is  due  to  the  coarse  naturalism  which  alternates  with 
the  sentimentality.  From  about  1790  August  Lafon- 
taine  was  the  great  producer  of  works  of  this  kind, 
but  far  above  his  somewhat  mechanical  productions 
we  must  rank  Engel’s  ‘  Herr  Lorenz  Stark,’  which 
appeared  in  1801  ;  we  seem  to  discern  in  it  a  faint  breath  of  Les¬ 
sing’s  spirit,  and  the  desired  pathos  is  produced  by  simple  means. 
The  idyllic  novel,  under  which  heading  we  may  also  class 
Clauren’s  ‘  Lienhard  und  Gertrude,’  reached  its  lowest  level  in 
‘  Mimili.’  Clauren’s  repulsive  work  ‘  Mimili.’  In  this  novel, 
written  at  the  time  of  impending  peace,  the  wars  of  Liberation, 


Muller, 
Lafontaine. 
Engel’s 
*  Herr 
Lorenz 
Stark.’ 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Narrative  Writing. 


289 


Satirical 

and 

humorous 

romances. 

Musaus, 

Wieland, 

Muller. 


Prussian  patriotism,  Swiss  scenery,  High  German  interlarded  with 
Swiss  German,  coquettish  naturalism,  culture  and  sensuality,  are 
mixed  up  into  a  disgusting  compound  which  the  public  of  that 
day,  however,  swallowed  with  delight. 

The  satirical  and  humorous  romances  began  with  Musaus’ 
‘  Grandison  the  Second’  (1760),  and  Wieland’s  ‘  Don 
Sylvio’  (1764).  Both  these  works  were  imitations 
of  ‘  Don  Quixote,’  as  was  also  Gottwerth  Muller’s 
1  Siegfried  von  Lindenberg,’  which  appeared  in  1769. 

The  novels  of  Richardson  play  the  same  part  in 
Musaus’  stories  as  the  Romances  of  chivalry  do  in 
Cervantes’  ‘  Don  Quixote.’  Literary  satire  often  took 
the  form  of  continuations  or  exaggerated  imitations  of  the  works 
it  meant  to  ridicule.  Thus  Nicolai  ventured  to  pro-  Nicolai  and 
duce  the  ‘  Joys  of  young  Werther’  as  a  pendant  to  Hauff. 
the  ‘Sorrows  of  young  Werther.’  In  the  same  way  Wilhelm 

Hauff  published  his  ‘Man  in  the  Moon’  under  the  name  of 
Clauren,  and  as  a  parody  of  that  author’s  manner.  The  humorous 
novel,  in  its  narrowest  sense,  stood  chiefly  under  the  influence  of 
Sterne’s  ‘Tristram  Shandy.’  Sterne’s  want  of  form,  his  endless 
digressions,  his  witty,  learned  and  fascinating  reflections  crammed 
full  or  allusions  and  quotations,  his  mixture  of  the  pathetic  and 
the  comic, — all  this  attracted  writers  like  Hippel  and  Jean 
Paul,  and  incited  them  to  imitation.  This  whole  class  of  writing 
reminds  one  of  Rabelais,  and  still  more  of  Fischart,  giving  full 
vent  as  it  does  to  the  author’s  individuality.  Montaigne’s  Essays, 
uniting  a  highly  personal  character  with  great  breadth  of  view, 
set  an  example  which  Hamann  in  Germany  followed  and  even 
exaggerated. 

Theodor  Gottlieb  von  Hippel  was  a  countryman  of  Hamann’s ; 
his  ‘  Lebens-laufe  nach  aufsteigender  Linie’  (Careers 
of  life  in  ascending  order)  appeared  between  1778 
and  1781,  and  his  less  important  ‘Kreuz-und  Querziige  des  Ritters 
A  bis  Z  ’  (‘  Zigzag  journeys  of  the  knight  A  to  Z’)  were  published 
between  1793  and  1799.  His  characters  are  wonderfully  original 
creations,  though  sometimes  painted  in  rather  glaring  colours ;  each 
one  of  them  has  his  hobby  as  in  Sterne,  and  his  favourite  characters 

VOL.  11.  u 


Hippel. 


290 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


like  to  manifest  themselves  in  witty  sayings.  But  this  humorist, 
like  Justinus  Kerner,  always  has  death  before  his  eyes.  He  even 
pictures  a  count  who  has  arranged  his  whole  castle  for  people  to 
die  there,  and  who  thus  pursues  the  burial  of  the  dead  on  a  large 
scale,  much  as  other  men  pursue  sport.  The  ‘  Careers  of  Life  ’  is 
a  grand  though  somewhat  unreadable  work.  There  is  something 
imperishable  about  it ;  it  seems  to  breathe  the  same  air  in  which 
Kant  and  Hamann  lived.  Its  genius  and  depth  of  thought  are 
most  apparent  if  we  compare  it  with  the  products  of  the  Berlin 
school,  such  as  Nicolai’s  ‘  Sebaldus  Nothanker.’ 

Jean  Paul  Friedrich  Richter  was  born  in  1763  at  Wunsiedel 
Jean  Paul  *n  Fichtel  Mountains,  and  he  died  in  1825  in 
compared  Bayreuth.  He  was  twenty-two  years  younger  than 
with  Hippel,  and  much  more  versatile,  owing  to  the 

Hippel.  generai  increase  of  culture  during  that  period.  Like 
Hippel  he  came  of  a  schoolmaster’s  and  clergyman’s  family.  But 
while  Hippel,  in  spite  of  the  subjectivity  of  his  style,  manages 
to  preserve  a  fairly  impartial  attitude  towards  the  characters  and 
circumstances  which  he  describes,  Jean  Paul  is  a  true  ‘senti¬ 
mental’  writer,  in  Schiller’s  sense  of  the  word  (see  p.  206).  He 
shows  a  yearning  for  nature  in  his  love  of  scenery  and  of  children. 
He  is  satirical,  idyllic  and  elegiac,  and  thus  reveals  all  the  features 
of  the  sentimental  author.  Hippel  was  a  good  Prussian,  and 
cherished  an  enthusiastic  admiration  for  Frederick  the  Great  and 
Catharine  the  Second.  In  his  ‘  Careers  of  Life  ’  he  attacked  an 
effete  oligarchy,  such  as  then  existed  in  Kurland,  contrasting  it 
with  a  genuine  state  like  Prussia.  Jean  Paul,  on  the  contrary, 
could  only  indulge  in  polemics  against  German  provincialism 
through  the  medium  of  burlesque  satire,  and  as  though  the  state 
of  things  he  described  were  prevalent  throughout  Germany.  The 
hero  of  Hippel's  ‘  Careers  of  Life  ’  comes  of  a  clergyman’s  family, 
and  Hippel  pictures  the  parish  clergy  with  all  their  comical  pecu¬ 
liarities,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  makes  them  out  to  be  thoroughly 
worthy  of  respect ;  at  the  same  time  he  gives  us,  from  the  interior 
of  his  parsonage,  numerous  glimpses  into  the  outside  world. 
Jean  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  buries  himself  in  the  idyllic  sphere 
in  order  to  forget  the  imperfections  of  the  outside  world,  and 


Ch.XIII.] 


Narra  five  IV ri  ting . 


291 


photographs  with  laughing  tenderness  narrow  and  trivial  con¬ 
ditions  of  life.  Hippel  never  wearies  of  urging  upon  his  readers  the 
early  Christian  precept,  Memento  Mori,  and  he  assigns  a  good  deal 
of  space  to  pietistic,  emotional  and  lachrymose  religiosity,  though 
it  never  dims  his  eyes  to  the  true  facts  of  human  existence ;  but 
Jean  Paul  dreams  himself  away  into  a  future  life  of  blessedness  in 
order  to  escape  from  the  rude  reality.  Hippel  only  brings  before 
us  fully  developed  and  consistent  characters,  men  of  a  pre-Wer- 
therian  period;  but  in  Jean  Paul  we  meet  with  those  ‘pro¬ 
blematic  ’  characters,  who  are  not  happy  in  themselves  and  do 
not  make  others  happy,  who  neither  present  a  picture  of  idyllic 
contentment  in  their  narrow  provincial  life,  nor  attempt  to  rise 
above  it  by  honestly  working  at  a  profession,  but  try  to  make 
up  for  their  loss  by  satirical  humour  or  indulgence  in  fantastic 
dreams. 

Jean  Paul  began  his  literary  career  in  1783  with  the  ‘Gronland- 
ische  Processe,’  a  work  of  a  satirical  character.  In  jean  Paul’s 
his  ‘ Schulmeisterldn  Wuz’  (1790)  he  entered  the  works, 
field  of  the  idyll.  His  first  novels,  ‘  Die  unsichtbare  Loge’  (1793), 
and  ‘Hesperus’  (1795),  were  fictitious  biographies,  histories  of 
the  development  of  a  character,  like  ‘Agathon’  and  ‘Wilhelm 
Meister,’  in  which  youthful  ideals  come  into  collision  with  reality. 
In  ‘  Quintus  Fixlein  ’  he  furnished  a  more  fully  developed  idyll  of  a 
schoolmaster’s  life,  while  ‘Siebenkas’  (1796  and  1797)  traces 
the  fortunes  of  a  ‘  problematic  ’  nature  of  the  order  described 
above.  Jean  Paul  reached  the  summit  of  his  powers 
in  ‘Titan’  (1800-1803)  and  the  ‘  Flegeljahre’  (1804- 
1805).  ‘Titan’  takes  up  the  problem  of  his  first  two  novels, 
only  giving  it  wider  scope ;  it  traces  the  inner  history  of  a 
German  prince  who  grows  up  ignorant  of  his  origin,  and  who 
ends  by  ascending  the  throne.  He  is  meant  to  impress  us  as  an 
enlightened  and  humane  sovereign,  under  whose  rule  the  country 
will  rejoice.  By  the  side  of  this  healthy  and  sane  man  stand  sickly 
characters  who  are  ruined ;  such  are  the  ethereal  and  spiritual 
Liane,  his  first  love,  Hinda,  his  second  love,  an  exaggerated, 
truly  Titanic  nature,  the  Titanic  voluptuary  Roquairol,  the  prince’s 
friend  and  rival,  the  genial  humorist  Schoppe,  who  conducted 


His  ‘  Titan.’ 


U  2 


292 


Romanticism . 


[Ch.  XIII. 


part  of  his  education,  and  who  ends  in  madness.  The  book 
ought  to  have  been  called  ‘  Anti-Titan/  for  it  is  written  against 
the  ideals  of  the  ‘  Storm  and  Stress’  movement,  against  ‘Titanism’ 
and  impetuous  genius,  sentimentality  and  misanthropic  humour. 
But  Jean  Paul  has  not  attained  his  object  in  this  work;  the 
delineation  of  the  sickly  characters,  in  spite  of  its  power,  is 
exaggerated,  and  the  picture  of  the  healthy-minded  man  excites 
our  incredulity.  The  author  strove  in  vain  to  get  out  of  his  own 
peculiar  world,  and  to  produce  in  ‘Titan’  a  serious  ideal  romance 
with  Southern  scenery.  Like  a  Dutch  genre-painter,  he  was  more 
His  at  home  in  depicting  the  details  of  common  life, 

‘  Flegel-  and  he  returned  to  this  province  in  the  *  Flegeljahre,’ 

jahre.  which  is  his  best  work,  though  unfortunately  he  never 
completed  it.  The  twin  brothers,  Walt  and  Vult,  whom  this 
story  tells  of — the  former  uncouth  and  shy,  of  a  childlike,  dreamy 
and  unpractical  nature,  the  latter  clever,  bold,  energetic  and 
satirical — are  both  reflections  of  Richter’s  own  nature,  and  repre¬ 
sent  the  two  sides  of  his  character,  as  a  poet  and  as  a  man.  They 
are  more  objective,  however,  and  show  greater  skill  in  development 
of  character  than  any  of  his  many  earlier  creations  reflecting 
himself. 

Soon  after  the  ‘Flegeljahre’  appeared,  Jean  Paul  embodied  his 

experiences  as  a  writer  and  a  schoolmaster  in  two 

His  works,  the  ‘  Preparatory  Course  of  Aesthetic’  (1804), 
Vorschule  T  ,  ,  rt-j  ..  >  ,  0  \ 

der  and  ‘  Levana,  or  the  theory  or  Lducation  (1807). 

Aesthetik,*  At  the  same  time  he  was  actively  engaged  in  writing 

‘Levana,  political  pamphlets,  which  won  him  considerable 

pamphlets  fame*  He  was  an  enthusiastic  adherent  of  the  French 

revolution,  struggled  for  freedom  of  the  press,  and 

sought  to  inspire  his  countrymen  with  hope  and  courage  in  the 

His  years  of  the  foreign  dominion.  His  last  series  of 

humorous  tales  are  for  the  most  part  of  a  purely  humorous 

tales.  nature,  and  picture  queer  characters  in  a  realistic  and 

delightful  manner. 

Jean  Paul  had  a  great  gift  of  humour,  a  rich  imagination  and  a 
strong  faculty  for  catching  the  poetical  aspect  of  everything.  His 
narrative  is  broad  and  animated,  full  of  life  and  action,  but  he  seldom 


Narrative  Writing . 


Ch.  XIII.] 


293 


fuses  his  materials  together  into  an  artistic  whole,  and  his  writing 
shows  the  same  want  of  form  as  Sterne’s.  His  style  is  Jean  paups 
overladen  with  encyclopaedic  knowledge,  far-fetched  manner  and 
metaphors,  parentheses,  and  digressions ;  his  sentences  style, 
are  awkward,  and  he  does  not  even  shrink  from  violations  of  good 
taste;  subjects  the  most  wide  apart  jostle  each  other,  and  the 
author  seems  to  delight  in  jumping  from  one  extreme  of  feeling  to 
another.  All  this  from  the  first  prevented  Jean  Paul’s  works  from 
appealing  to  the  general  public,  and  it  is  owing  to  these  faults  of 
style  that  the  circle  of  his  readers  has  gradually  become  smaller  and 
smaller.  But  for  all  that,  he  deeply  influenced  the  humour  of  the 
Romanticists,  the  younger  of  whom  sometimes  adopted  his  ideas, 
and  still  oftener  his  style  and  striking  metaphors.  His  wide 
Even  Goethe  occasionally  affected  Jean  Paul’s  style,  influence, 
though  with  great  discretion.  With  Ludwig  Borne  and  the 
journalists  who  followed  in  his  steps,  intellectual  display  was  con¬ 
sidered  indispensable.  The  high-flown  Oriental  fashion  in  poetry 
was  from  first  to  last,  as  regards  style,  a  mere  continuation  of  Jean 
Paul’s  manner,  reinforced  from  fresh  sources. 

Jean  Paul  has  left  his  mark  on  German  prose  and  German  style 
in  general ;  it  is  all  the  more  to  be  regretted  that  he  did  not  suc¬ 
ceed  in  moulding  his  grand  creations  into  perfect  works  of  art. 
But  the  same  was  the  case  with  almost  all  the  novels  of  this  period. 
In  this  respect  they  were  surpassed  by  the  novelette  or  tale,  which 
has  more  limited  means  at  its  disposal,  and  is  obliged  to  be  more 
sparing  in  its  use  of  imagery.  The  narratives  and 
fables  in  verse,  which  Hagedorn  and  Gellert  had 
brought  again  into  favour,  and  which  had  been  continued  by 
Gleim,  Lessing,  Wieland,  Lichtwer,  Pfeffel,  Langbein  and  others, 
went  out  of  fashion  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  we  find  but  a 
very  few  fable-witers  following  with  halting  steps  in  the  traces  of 
their  celebrated  and  popular  predecessors.  In  the  place  of  these 
versified  tales  the  short  prose  narrative  considerably  increased  in 
circulation  and  influence.  It  gradually  descended  from  fantastic 
regions  to  the  level  of  reality,  and  was  in  other  respects  also  subject 
to  the  same  tendencies  as  the  novel. 

Gottlieb  Meissner,  a  disciple  of  Wieland’s,  began  to  write  his 


Short  tales. 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


294 

‘Sketches’  in  1778,  and  it  was  these  that  brought  the  tale  specially 
Meissner  int0  vogue-  In  1782  Musaus  began  his  ‘German 
and  Popular  Stories/  in  which  he  went  back  to  the  old 
Musaus.  German  legends;  and  in  1787  he  started  the  collection 
which  he  called  ‘  Straussfedern/  consisting  of  reproductions  of 
French  tales.  This  last  series  was  continued  by  Gottwerth  Muller 
and  later  on  by  Ludwig  Tieck.  Tieck  tried  his  hand  in  all  the 
^  various  departments  of  the  prose  epic,  and  rose  from 
imitation  to  original  production.  His  ‘  Popular 
Tales’  of  1797  contain  a  simple  reproduction  of  the  story  of  the 
‘  Haimonskinder  ’  (p  297),  a  sentimental ‘adaptation  of  the  ‘  Schone 
Magelone/ a  modernised  version  of  the  ‘  Schildbiirger  ’  (p.  298), 
satirising  shallow  enlightenment,  and  the  original  story  of  the 
fair-haired  Ekbert,  in  which  we  at  first  believe  ourselves  in  the 
world  of  reality,  but  are  gradually  drawn  deeper  and  deeper  into  a 
legend  of  horrors.  Down  to  1812  we  find  him  continuing  these 
revivals  of  old-German  legends  and  at  the  same  time  producing 
stories  of  his  own,  such  as  the  Rune-mountain,  Love-magic,  the 
Elves,  the  Goblet,  some  of  which  are  gruesome  in  the  extreme. 
But  between  1821  and  1840  he  produced  a  long  series  of  tales, 
the  materials  for  which  were  generally  derived  from  real  life,  and 
for  the  most  part  from  modern  life ;  they  are  free  from  all  traces 
of  the  fabulous  element,  yet  they  almost  all  miss  the  true  epic  tone 
and  are  too  improbable  to  affect  us  strongly. 

During  the  second  decade  of  this  century  romantic  narra¬ 
tive  was  at  its  best.  In  1810  and  18  n  appeared  Heinrich 
von  Kleist’s  tales;  in  1841  Fouqud’s  ‘Undine/  and  Achim  von 
Arnim’s  first  independent  collection  of  tales;  in  1812  Grimm’s 
‘Fairy  Stories;’  in  1814  Chamisso’s  ‘  Schlemihl ;  ’  from  1814  to 
Clemens  1822  Amadeus  Hoffmann’s  numerous  ghost  stories; 
Brentano.  [n  j 8jy  Clemens  Brentano's  powerful  but  strangely 
told  ‘  Geschichte  vom  braven  Kasperl  und  der  schonen  Annerl/ 
as  well  as  his  mad  tale,  ‘  Die  mehreren  Wehmuller  und  ungari- 
schen  Nationalgesichter.’ 

Heinrich  von  Kleist  displayed  in  his  tales  the  same  thrilling 
power  as  in  his  dramas.  A  story  such  as  ‘The  Earthquake  in 
Chili  ’  stands  out  as  a  masterpiece  among  all  prose  narrative. 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Narrative  Writing. 


*9  5 


A  guilty  young  man  and  maiden  are  saved  by  the  earthquake  at  the 
very  moment  when  she  is  going  to  suffer  the  penalty  h.  v.  Kleist’s 
of  death  and  he  is  about  to  destroy  himself.  Filled  with  tales, 
joy  at  this  unexpected  deliverance  and  reunion,  they  return  to  the 
town  to  offer  thanks  to  God ;  but  they  hereby  expose  themselves 
to  the  fanaticism  of  the  mob,  and  fall  victims  to  its  fury.  Kleist’s 
style  of  narration  is  highly  objective  ;  with  the  greatest  conciseness, 
he  manages  to  communicate  a  large  mass  of  details  and  even 
casual  accessories ;  he  takes  the  greatest  pains  to  ensure  clearness 
in  his  writing,  and  does  not  shrink  even  from  disagreeable 
facts  where  the  narrative  entails  them.  Long  discourses  he 
reports  indirectly  and  as  summarily  as  possible,  but  in  important 
moments  he  makes  his  characters  themselves  speak  in  a  laconic 
and  interjectional  style.  The  greater  part  of  the  story  is  written 
in  long,  involved  periods,  overladen  with  relative  and  conditional 
clauses  and  bristling  with  particles.  The  author  narrates  with 
calm  deliberation,  repressing  all  personal  sympathy  beyond  some 
occasional  epithets,  until  the  final  catastrophe  is  reached,  when 
his  emotion  seems  to  overpower  him  and  he  utters,  apparently 
against  his  will,  his  horror  of  the  fanatical  murderers  and  his 
admiration  of  the  one  courageous  defender  of  the  unfortunate 
pair. 

Achim  von  Arnim  chose  as  his  models  the  story-tellers  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  made  free  use,  like  Grim-  Achim  von 
melshausen  for  instance,  of  the  creations  of  popular  Arnim. 
superstition,  endowing  them,  however,  with  an  independent  and 
well-defined  life  of  their  own.  His  style  of  narrative  is  sometimes 
quite  excellent,  free  from  all  artificial  excitement,  deliberate, 
clear  and  healthy  in  tone,  though  always  marked  by  a  strong 
predilection  for  the  marvellous. 

Fouque  made  his  happiest  stroke  in  *  Undine,’  a  revival  of  an  old 

German  legend,  the  outline  of  which  he  had  found  in  _ 

0  .  .  Fouque. 

Theophrastus  Paracelsus;  his  conception  of  the  water- 
spirits  is  very  prettily  carried  out,  but  the  problem  of  human 
interest  is  superficially  treated,  and  the  simple  popular  tone 
adopted  at  the  outset  is  repeatedly  departed  from,  to  suit  the 
author’s  convenience. 


296 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Chamisso’s  ‘Peter  Schlemihl,’  on  the  contrary,  is  a  faultless 

work  of  art  and  one  of  deep  import.  There,  too, 
Chamisso.  ,  .  .  r  .  . 

a  popular  superstition  forms  the  leading  motive, 

namely,  the  idea  that  a  man  might  lose  his  shadow,  the  devil 
carrying  it  off  when  he  could  not  get  the  man  himself  into  his 
power.  This  tale  deserves  its  universal  renown.  The  poet  has 
made  the  hero  a  symbolical  portrait  of  himself;  ‘  Schlemihl’  means 
an  unlucky  wight,  and  Chamisso  has  attributed  to  this  poor  devil  the 
same  incapacity  of  coping  with  the  world,  which  in  his  own  case 
had  disposed  him  to  solitude,  to  intercourse  with  nature  and  with 
children  of  nature.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  be  acquainted  with 
this  fact  in  order  to  follow  with  interest  the  clear  and  simple  nar¬ 
ratives,  and  even  to  discover  some  symbolical  signification  in  it. 

While  Fouqu^’s  ‘Undine’  pictured  a  conventional  age  of 
chivalry,  Chamisso  laid  the  scene  of  his  story  in  the  present,  and 
thereby  achieved  an  effect  similar  to  that  which  Arnim  produced, 
when  he  introduced  an  enchantress  and  other  magical  beings  side 
bv  side  with  definite  historical  characters.  This  mixture  of  the 
real  and  the  imaginary  was  carried  to  its  furthest  extreme  by 
Ernst  Theodor  Amadeus  Hoffmann,  who  borrowed 
motives  from  Jean  Paul,  Tieck,  Chamisso,  Arnim, 
Heinrich  von  Kleist,  and  often  even  drew  his  inspiration  from 
pictures  alone.  He  followed  in  the  steps  of  Cervantes.  In  emulation 
of  Novalis’  ‘  Ofterdingen  ’  he  narrated  the  minstrel- war  on  the 
Wartburg  in  the  style  of  an  old  German  popular  romance,  and  in 
other  cases,  too,  he  made  use  of  older  materials.  But  he  impressed 
the  stamp  of  his  own  individuality  on  all  that  he  handled,  working 
carefully  and  methodically,  and  holding  his  readers’  imagination  spell¬ 
bound.  He  relates  with  perfect  composure  horrors  which  make  our 
hair  stand  on  end  as  in  a  fearful  dream.  But  he  produces  his  effects 
more  by  what  happens  and  appears  to  the  outer  senses  than  by 
characters  and  inward  experiences,  and  perhaps  it  was  for  this 
very  reason  that  he  reaped  a  great  success.  He  at  once  became 
popular  in  France,  like  Solomon  Gessner  in  the  previous  century, 
and  found  zealous  imitators  among  the  French  romanticists.  Like 
Tieck  and  Brentano  he  attacked  Philistinism,  which  he  represented 
as  a  creature  of  darkness,  while,  according  to  him,  the  ghosts 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Narrative  Writing. 


297 


EichendorfF. 


of  Romanticism  embody  true  and  natural  life.  Science  too  is,  in 
his  eyes,  a  work  of  the  Philistines,  and  he  makes  a  romantic  student 
declare  that  the  way  in  which  a  professor  speaks  about  nature 
offends  all  his  tenderest  feelings.  In  such  utterances  as  these  we 
recognise  the  kind  of  mind  to  wThich  the  so-called  Natural  Philoso¬ 
phy  appealed.  But  experimental  science  proved  in  the  end  to  be 
a  match  for  Romanticism. 

The  strong  wine  of  the  older  Romanticists  was  meanwhile 
being  watered,  sugared  and  perfumed  in  Berlin  and  Dresden  by 
men  like  Clauren,  Theodor  Hell  and  Friedrich  Kind,  ciauren, 
and,  thus  diluted,  was  administered  in  harmless  doses  Hell>  Kind, 
even  to  Philistines,  and  taken  everywhere  with  great  relish  in  the 
third  decade  of  this  century.  Nevertheless  Eichendorff  still  con¬ 
tinued  the  literary  war  against  the  Philistines.  His 
‘Taugenichts  ’  (1826)  is  written  in  the  most  delightful 
vein ;  it  is  an  improbable  story  full  of  misunderstanding,  error 
and  strange  occurrences,  and  the  reader  is  almost  infected  with  the 
lighthearted  mood  of  the  hero,  who  triumphs  over  all  obstacles, 
sings  the  most  beautiful  songs,  never  knows  what  is  happening 
around  him,  but  is  always  dreaming  and  loving. 

About  this  time,  in  1829,  Goethe  brought  his  ‘Wilhelm  Meister’ 
to  a  hurried  termination  in  a  sequel  entitled  ‘  Wilhelm 
Meister’s  Wanderjahre,  oder  die  Entsagenden/  This 
latter  part  of  the  work  bears  marks  of  carelessness, 
and  is  noticeably  deficient  in  artistic  unity.  The 
old  secret  society  into  which  Wilhelm  had  been  received  now  has 
a  new  object  in  view,  namely,  emigration  to  America.  Each 
member  remains  in  the  service  of  the  society,  but  seeks  to  develop 
his  capabilities  in  that  direction  in  which  he  can  most  benefit  the 
whole  brotherhood.  Each  submits  to  be  separated  from  his 
nearest  and  dearest.  Wilhelm  parts  from  Natalie,  takes  a  journey 
into  Italy,  finds  his  vocation  as  a  surgeon,  and  ends  by  practising  his 
skill  on  his  own  son.  The  education  of  this  son  forms  one  of 
the  chief  points  of  interest  in  the  ‘  Wanderjahre/  He  is  sent  to  an 
institution,  spoken  of  as  the  ‘  Paedagogical  province/  the  idea  of 
which  was  probably  suggested  to  Goethe  by  Fellenberg’s  Institu¬ 
tion  at  Hofwyl  in  Switzerland.  He  soon  finds  a  partner  of  his 


*  Wilhelm 
Meister’s 
Wander¬ 
jahre.* 


,298 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


affections.  His  years  of  apprenticeship  are  the  very  opposite  to 
what  Wilhelm’s  had  been ;  where  the  former  had  erred,  the  latter 
is  guided  in  the  right  way;  whereas  Wilhelm  was  wanting  in  self- 
control,  his  son  is  to  learn  to  exercise  it;  whereas  the  father  was 
undisciplined,  the  son  is  to  grow  up  under  rule  and  discipline. 

The  whole  seems  rather  a  collection  of  materials  for  a  book 
than  a  complete  work.  Much  about  which  the  reader  would  like 
to  be  informed  remains  obscure.  Strange  and  off-hand  assump¬ 
tions  are  made  without  the  slightest  hesitation ;  a  wealth  of 
practical  experience  and  wisdom  drawn  from  nature  and  history  is 
spread  out  before  us,  but  the  narrative  sometimes  comes  to  a 
standstill,  and  the  chief  charm  of  the  book  lies  in  the  episodical 
novelettes.  Some  of  the  heroes  of  these  episodes  become 
acquainted  with  Wilhelm  and  are  thereby  brought  into  relation 
with  his  fate  or  with  the  ‘  self-denying  brotherhood.’  The  tales  them¬ 
selves,  which  form  to  a  certain  extent  a  continuation  of  the 

4 

1  Conversations  of  the  Emigrants,’  are  of  unequal  merit ;  the  story 
of  the  ‘  man  of  fifty  years  ’  can  alone  be  ranked  among  the  highest 
achievements  of  Goethe’s  art.  If  we  survey  the  whole  group  of 
Goethe’s  tales,  we  find  that  he  too  passed  from  ghost-stories  and 
fairy-tales  to  representation  of  real  life. 

Of  the  number  of  tales  destined  to  be  inserted  in  the  ‘Wander- 
The  <  Wahl-  jahre  ’  and  dealing  with  the  theme  of  renunciation,  the 
verwand-  story  of  the  ‘  Elective  Affinities  ’  was  separated  from 
schaften.  resj-  anc}  published  in  an  expanded  form  as  a 

novel.  It  appeared  in  1809  and  is  the  epic  masterpiece  of  the 
whole  period  from  Schiller’s  death  to  Goethe’s;  it  is  executed 
with  Goethe’s  full  poetic  power,  and  is  the  supreme  prose-utter¬ 
ance,  just  as  ‘Hermann  and  Dorothea’  is  the  supreme  poetic 
utterance  of  his  cultured  realism.  The  novel  falls  into  two  parts, 
each  of  eighteen  chapters,  and  the  symmetry  and  parallelism  are 
also-  carried  out  in  other  respects.  It  is  true  that  there  are 
some  defects  in  its  construction ;  a  detached  story  is  inserted  in 
the  middle  of  the  novel,  extracts  from  a  journal  are  introduced, 
and  the  second  part  is  perhaps  too  obviously  spun  out  to  an 
equal  length  with  the  first ;  but  in  other  respects  the  work  is 
without  a  rival.  Nowhere  do  we  meet  with  such  subtleties  of 


Ch.  XIII.] 


Narrative  Writing. 


299 


composition,  with  such  fine  adjustment  of  motives,  with  such  con¬ 
sistency  in  the  development  of  action  from  character,  and  of 
character  from  surrounding  circumstances.  It  is  in  no  wise  in 
contradiction  with  this  that  the  ‘  third  world,’  as  Goethe  called  it, 
the  world  of  forebodings,  portents,  superstition  and  evil  chances, 
is  also  made  to  play  a  part  in  the  development  of  the  story.  In 
the  plan  of  his  narrative  Goethe  displays  the  whole  of  his  rare 
talent  for  the  invention  of  characteristic  actions,  but  he  also  does 
not  avoid  direct  psychological  analysis  when  requisite.  He  has 
adhered  to  unity  of  scene  as  far  as  possible ;  whoever  is  not  living 
on  the  country-estate  where  the  whole  interest  of  the  plot  is  con¬ 
centrated,  escapes  our  close  observation.  Goethe  in  no  wise 
shrinks  from  prosaic  details;  money-matters,  questions  of  agri¬ 
culture,  the  financial  circumstances  of  the  characters  introduced, 
and  various  little  anxieties  and  interests  of  country  life  are  the 
subject  of  detailed  discussion.  Continued  systematic  labour  for 
the  property  and  its  embellishment  forms  the  background  to  the 
play  of  emotion  which  occupies  the  first  part.  Across  this  back¬ 
ground  move  the  four  characters  who  are  gliding  from  a  smooth, 
easy  path  of  life  deeper  and  deeper  into  the  abysses  of  a  tragical 
fate. 

A  ‘permanent  relation,’  a  typical  institution  of  human  society, 
such  as  Goethe  had  sought  out  for  poetic  treatment  ]yfarriage  its 
since  his  Italian  journey,  forms  the  problem  of  this  leading 
work  also ;  marriage  is  here  the  leading  theme.  In  theme. 
‘Wilhelm  Meister’  Goethe  had  treated  marriage  according  to  the 
frivolous  views  of  the  eighteenth  century;  in  the  ‘  Wahlverwand- 
schaften  ’  it  is  considered  from  the  more  serious  point  of  view  of  a 
more  serious  age.  It  was  at  this  time,  too,  that  Goethe’s  ‘  Stella  ’ 
received  its  tragic  termination.  Marriage  is  looked  on  from  all 
sides  in  the  ‘  Wahlverwandschaften we  listen  to  the  tale  of,  or 
actually  witness  various  marriages,  and  the  whole  work  centres 
round  one  such  union.  Eduard  and  Charlotte  had  loved  each 
other  in  early  youth,  but  married  late,  it  being  the  second  marriage 
with  each  of  them.  The  Captain,  a  friend  of  Eduard's,  and  Ottilie, 
a  niece  of  Charlotte’s,  come  to  their  country-seat  on  a  visit ; 
Eduard  feels  himself  drawn  to  Ottilie,  Charlotte  to  the  Captain, 


3°° 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


and  in  both  cases  the  affection  is  returned.  Charlotte  and 
the  Captain  have  moral  strength  and  restrain  themselves,  while 
Eduard  and  Ottilie  give  themselves  up  to  their  passion ;  but 
Ottilie,  too,  learns  renunciation  and  dies,  and  Eduard  follows  her 
in  death. 

The  typical  contrast  between  self-denial  and  renunciation  is  carried 
Characters  out  in  the  individual  characters.  Eduard  stands  in 
in  the  work,  contrast  to  the  Captain ;  the  former  can  deny  himself 
nothing,  and  obstinately  persists  in  following  his  wishes ;  the  latter  is 
in  all  things  trained  as  a  soldier,  and  accustomed  to  self-control. 
Eduard  is  unsystematic  and  of  a  dilettante  nature;  the  Captain  is 
methodical  and  precise,  and  thoroughly  master  of  all  that  he  under¬ 
takes.  The  character  of  Ottilie,  the  central  figure  of  the  romance, 
is  made  thoroughly  individual  in  many  respects,  though  the  merely 
typical  aspects  of  her  character  ultimately  predominate.  She  is  con¬ 
trasted  with  two  different  characters,  with  Charlotte,  and  with 
Luciane,  Charlotte’s  daughter  by  her  first  marriage.  In  the  one  case 
we  have  the  contrast  between  the  unformed  girl  and  the  married 
woman,  in  the  other  between  one  girl  and  another.  Charlotte  acts 
calmly  from  high  principle,  while  Ottilie’s  actions  are  entirely 
dictated  by  instinct  and  personal  feeling.  Charlotte  has  had  ex¬ 
perience  of  life,  and  looks  on  the  world  with  calm  self-possession, 
while  Ottilie  wanders  on  blindly,  and  allows  herself  to  be  led  by 
others,  especially  by  the  man  she  loves,  till  suddenly  there  comes 
a  horrible  awakening  from  her  dream,  and  she  learns  through  bitter 
sufferings  the  truth  about  life,  love,  and  duty.  Luciane,  for  her 
part,  possesses  all  the  qualities  for  getting  on  well  in  the  world, 
Ottilie  all  the  qualities  for  making  others  happy.  The  former  is 
brilliant  but  selfish ;  the  latter  modest  and  self-sacrificing.  Luciane 
is  not  introduced  to  us  till  the  second  part,  in  which  we  are  also 
made  more  closely  acquainted  with  two  of  Ottilie’s  suitors,  who 
again  stand  in  contrast  to  each  other,  namely,  the  architect  and 
the  master  at  the  school  where  Ottilie  and  Luciane  were  educated. 
The  architect  is  of  an  artistic  and  romantic  nature,  the  teacher  a 
practical  man  and  a  rationalist.  The  artist  paints  his  beloved  as 
an  angel  in  the  canopy  of  his  Gothic  chapel,  and  persuades  her  to 
represent  the  Virgin  Mary  in  some  tableaux  vivants ;  the  teacher 


The  Drama. 


Ch.  XIII.] 


3QI 


thinks  he  would  be  introducing  her  to  a  suitable  sphere  of  action 
in  making  her  mistress  of  a  boarding-school. 

The  architect  expresses  the  author’s  own  view.  Ottilie  has  un¬ 
resistingly  yielded  to  passion,  but  she  comes  round  to  the  view  that 
she  must  practise  utter  self-denial.  She  is  of  a  pious  nature, 
entirely  penetrated  by  a  sense  of  the  divine;  the  author  himself 
calls  her  ‘  the  heavenly  one/  She  takes  a  vow,  and  lays  a  penance 
upon  herself  of  fasting  and  silence,  under  which  she  gradually  fades 
away.  After  death  the  people  attribute  to  her  body  wonderful 
healing  powers,  and  the  faithful  and  sin-laden  make  pilgrimages 
to  the  Gothic  chapel  in  which  she  lies  buried.  The  writer  wishes 
that  his  readers  no  less  than  the  simple  folk  should  enshrine  in 
their  hearts  the  memory  of  his  suffering  heroine  as  of  a  glorified 
saint,  and  should  remember  her  quiet  virtues,  whose  gentle  in¬ 
fluence  this  poor  world  ever  welcomes  with  eager  joy,  and  mourns 
their  loss  with  tears  and  yearnings. 

It  is  in  the  ‘  Elective  Affinities  ’  that  Goethe  shows  most  strongly 
his  artistic  appreciation  of  the  mediaeval  and  Catholic  tendencies  of 
Romanticism.  He  hardly  displays  such  sympathy  in  any  other 
work,  unless  it  be  in  a  dramatic  sketch  of  the  same  period,  which 
he  never  completed,  and  in  a  few  parts  of  ‘  Faust/ 


The  Drama. 


The  German  stage  suffered  an  irreparable  loss  in  Schiller’s  early 
death.  In  point  of  time  Heinrich  von  Kleist  and  Franz  Grillparzer 
were  his  successors,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  Kleist's  merit  was  not 
adequately  recognised  till  long  after  his  death.  Grillparzer’s  fame 
during  his  life-time  spread  little  beyond  his  native  land  of  .'ustria, 
and  even  with  the  Austrian  public  he  did  not  always  find  due 
recognition. 


Goethe  entertained  the  idea  of  completing  Schiller’s  ‘  Demetrius/ 
but  he  never  carried  it  out ;  nor  did  his  plan  for 
a  drama  which  should  present  a  story  of  Christian 
martyrdom  of  the  time  of  the  conversion  of  the  Saxons 
ever  get  beyond  a  mere  sketch.  After  Schiller’s 
death  Goethe  only  wrote  slight  pieces  for  special  occasions. 


Goathe’s 

later 

dramatio 

works. 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


3°  2 

Thus  he  wrote  a  Prelude  to  celebrate  ‘the  happy  reunion’  of 
the  Royal  Family  in  Weimar  after  the  troubled  times  of  1806 
d  ,  and  1807.  ‘Pandora,’  produced  about  the  same 
time,  was,  it  seems,  meant  to  celebrate  the  general 
return  of  peace ;  while  ‘  Epimenides’  Awakening  ’  was  performed 
at  Berlin  in  commemoration  of  the  victory  over  Napoleon.  It 
is  much  to  be  regretted  that  ‘  Pandora  ’  remained  unfinished,  for 
what  we  have  of  it  is  glorious  both  in  idea  and  execution.  The 
poet  here  re-introduces  us  to  the  mythical  favourite  of  his  earlier 
years  — Prometheus.  He  and  his  brother  Epimetheus  are  at  strife 
at  the  commencement  of  the  drama,  and  they  were  probably  to  be 
reconciled  during  the  course  of  it  by  the  return  of  Pandora.  They 
represent  in  a  typical  manner  a  contrast  found  in  the  moral  world : 
Prometheus  is  active,  Epimetheus  contemplative ;  the  former  is  a 
realist,  the  latter  an  idealist.  Both  are  one-sided,  and  have  to  learn 
to  triumph  over  their  one-sidedness,  and  to  appreciate  each  others 
merits. 

Finer  spirits  like  Platen  perceived  the  value  of  this  remarkable 
German  fragment.  But  the  mass  of  the  public  passed  it  by  in 
Drama  after  indifference,  and  learnt  nothing  from  the  great  master 
Schiller.  who  still  continued  to  bring  to  light  new  capabilities 
of  his  inexhaustible  genius.  Extravagance,  experiments,  and  life¬ 
less  routine  marred  the  German  drama  after  Schiller’s  death. 
Stage-managers  cared  for  nothing  but  the  success  of  the  moment. 
The  most  gifted  writers  were  either  incapable  of  gauging  the 
requirements  of  the  actual  stage,  or  else  they  systematically  set 
at  nought  the  laws  of  dramatic  technique.  The  influence  of  the 
literary  revolution  of  1773  is  still  clearly  perceptible,  especially  in 
the  carelessness  of  form  which  it  brought  into  fashion.  With  the 
exception  of  Wilhelm  Schlegel’s  translation  of  Shakspeare,  the 
extreme  section  of  the  Romantic  school  accomplished  but  little  in 
the  province  of  the  drama.  The  two'  brothers  Schlegel  made 
Tieck’s  each  but  a  single  essay  in  dramatic  authorship,  and 
<  Drama-  neither  with  success.  Tieck,  Brentano  and  Arnim, 

turgische  only  produced  dramas  for  reading,  some  of  which 
Blatter  • 

were  very  extravagant,  while  all  of  them  lacked 
sustained  beauty.  Tieck’s  ‘  Dramaturgische  Blatter,’  theatrical 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Drama. 


3°3 


criticisms  published  in  the  years  1823  and  1827,  appeared  in 
Dresden,  where  Tieck  had  some  connection  with  the  theatre. 
They  have  been  compared  with  Lessing’s  ‘  Hamburgische  Drama¬ 
turgic/  but  in  reality  they  only  demonstrate  the  author’s  caprice 
and  superficiality,  his  blind  admiration  of  Shakspeare,  and  his 
hostility  towards  Lessing  and  Schiller.  Far  more  valuable  was 
another  production  of  this  period  which  likewise  emanated  from 
Dresden,  Karl  Maria  von  Weber’s  ‘  Freischiitz/  the  Weber’s 
masterpiece  of  romantic  opera,  and  a  priceless  con-  ‘  Freischiitz.’ 
tribution  both  to  dramatic  art  and  to  popular  music.  The  magic 
powers,  which  Tieck  conjured  up  in  vain,  were  here  introduced 
with  the  greatest  effect,  and  proclaimed  to  all  people  the  glory 
of  German  romanticism. 

The  jealous  depreciation  of  Schiller’s  genius  on  the  part  of  the 
Romanticists  doubtless  deterred  many  of  the  younger  dramatists 
from  entering  the  only  school  where  they  could  have  learnt  the 
true  principles  of  dramatic  art.  But  the  power  of  his  genius 
triumphantly  asserted  itself  both  at  that  time  and  later,  in  spite 
of  all  its  detractors.  Theodor  Korner  unfortunately 
never  got  beyond  mere  imitation  of  Schiller,  before 
his  untimely  death  in  the  war  against  Napoleon.  The 
Dane,  Adam  Oehlenschlager,  was  one  of  Schiller’s 
warmest  admirers,  and  did  not  refrain  from  ridiculing 
the  Romantic  movement.  He  was  a  great  literary  leader  in  his 
own  fatherland,  but  in  Germany  his  fame  was  more  transitory. 
He  enriched  the  German  drama  with  subjects  drawn  from  the 
Scandinavian  heroic  period,  breathing  into  them  virtue,  gentle 
sentiment  and  a  humane  idealism ;  he  painted  the  contrast  between 
an  innocent  and  pious  Christianity  and  a  rude  and  cruel  heathen¬ 
ism,  but  he  also  depicted  brave  and  noble  heathendom  in  conflict 
with  monkish  deceit  and  cunning.  He  described  the  constancy 
and  early  love  characteristic  of  the  heroic  North.  His  ‘  Cor¬ 
reggio  ’  is  a  more  expanded  and  sentimental  treatment  of  the 
theme  which  Goethe  had  handled  powerfully,  but  less  fully,  in  his 
‘Artist’s  earthly  Pilgrimage  and  Apotheosis.’ 

Zacharias  Werner  was  another  writer  more  or  less  connected 
with  Schiller,  whose  daring,  however,  he  absurdly  exaggerated 


Theodor 

Korner. 

Adam 

Oehlen¬ 

schlager. 


3°4 


Romanticism 


[Ch.  XIII. 


The  operatic  effects  and  the  supernatural  elements  in  the  ‘  Maid 

Zacharias  of  Orleans '  were  what  suited  Werner’s  taste  best. 

Werner.  But,  jn  Spjte  Qf  ap  his  pretensions  to  depth  and 

culture,  he  only  came  up  to  the  level  of  Kotzebue,  who  could 

also  adopt  the  manner  of  Schiller  when  he  chose.  His  delineation 

of  character  is  always  superficial,  often  arbitrary  and  full  of 

exaggeration ;  instead  of  pictures  of  real  human  beings  he  gives 

us  scenic  effects,  songs,  visions,  secret  societies,  spirits  who  wander 

on  earth  in  the  guise  of  harp-players  and  talk  mysterious  nonsense. 

He  waters  down  marked  historical  characters  such  as  Luther  or 

Attila,  throwing  around  them  a  rose-pink  theatrical  light,  which 

makes  them  appear  smaller  and  more  trivial.  His 

,„His  ,  ‘Twenty-Fourth  of  February’  began  that  series  of 
‘Vierund-  ' 

zwanzigster  so-called  ‘  Fate-tragedies,’  in  which  the  most  horrible 

Februar,’  crimes  are  made  to  result  from  improbable  coin- 

first  of  cidences  or  trivial  motives.  It  is  a  favourite  device 

the  ‘fate- 

tragedies.’  these  Fate-tragedians  to  make  the  instrument  of 

murder  a  sword  or  a  knife  which  has  already  once 
been  used  in  the  family  for  a  similar  purpose,  and  which  is 
generally  to  be  seen  in  a  conspicuous  position  on  the  stage 
at  the  very  first  drawing-up  of  the  curtain.  Werner’s  play  is  a 
miserable  production,  totally  destitute  of  dramatic  skill.  The 
author’s  chief  object  seems  to  be  to  pile  up  the  horrors  as  thick 
as  possible. 

Adopting  this  play  of  Werner’s  as  his  model,  Milliner,  a  lawyer 
Milliners  in  Weissenfels,  gave  to  the  German  stage  in  1812  a 
plays.  piay  called  ‘  The  Twenty-Ninth  of  February,’  and  in 
1813  he  produced  his  notorious  drama  ‘Die  Schuld’  (Guilt), 
under  the  influence  of  which  Grillparzer’s  ‘  Ahnfrau  ’  (Ancestress), 
and  a  number  of  other  tragedies  of  a  similar  sort,  were  written. 
‘  Die  Schuld  ’  and  ‘  Die  Ahnfrau  ’  are  written  in  rhymed  trochees 
of  fouj-  feet,  a  metre  which  the  romantic  worship  of  Calderon  had 
brought  into  fashion ;  it  easily  degenerated  into  an  exaggerated 
rhetorical  style,  which  enhances  the  horror  of  the  prophecies, 
curses,  portents,  dreams  and  wild  passions,  of  which  these  plays 
are  full. 

By  the  side  of  worshippers  of  Calderon  worshippers  of  Shak- 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Drama. 


3°5 


speare  were  not  wanting,  who  characteristically  affiliated  them¬ 
selves  to  the  German  Shakspeare  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
Andreas  Gryphius.  Achim  von  Arnim  and  Karl  Im-  Arnim  and 
mermann  each  wrote  a  play  on  the  story  of  ‘  Cardenio  Karl 
and  Celinde’  (see  p.  283).  In  his  drama,  ‘Friedrich  Immermann. 
der  Zweite/  Immermann  appealed  to  the  increased  interest  taken 
by  his  contemporaries  in  German  mediaeval  history,  and  more 
particularly  in  the  house  of.  Hohenstaufen.  This  drama  is  a  well- 
planned  history-play  in  the  manner  of  Shakspeare ;  the  poetic 
diction  is  fresh  and  original,  and  the  fifth  act  really  excellent,  but 
still  the  play  had  no  striking  success.  Christian  Christian 
Grabbe  immediately  followed  in  Immermann’s  steps,  Grabbe. 
and  began  a  cycle  of  Hohenstaufen-tragedies.  In  1829  he  pro¬ 
duced  ‘Friedrich  Barbarossa,’  in  1830  ‘Heinrich  der  Sechste;’ 
these,  like  all  his  other  plays,  are  full  of  the  most  absurd  declamation, 
and  are  utterly  deficient  in  dramatic  seauence.  In 
1830  Ernst  Raupach  had  begun  his  Hohenstaufen-  Raupach’s 
cycle,  which  was  completed  in  1837,  and  embraced  Hohenstau- 
no  less  than  sixteen  dramas ;  Raupach  boasted  that  fen*cycle- 
these  were  ‘  strictly  historical  dramas/  which  means  that  in  them 
we  are  spared  nothing  of  what  the  author  knows,  or  thinks  he 
knows,  of  history.  These  plays  reckon  on  such  patience  or  such 
thirst  for  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  audience  as  seems  to  us 
almost  incredible;  not  but  what  it  actually  did  exist,  for  ten  of 
them  were  once  performed  in  Berlin  in  chronological  succession, 
and  all  the  seats  were  subscribed  for.  Raupach  understood  his 
audience.  From  the  year  1825  he  retained  a  firm  footing  in 
Berlin,  producing  tragedies,  comedies  and  opera-texts,  His  great 
one  or  more  new  ones  every  year,  with  the  same  skill  fertility, 
as  Kotzebue,  and  guided  by  no  other  artistic  principle  than  that  of 
pleasing  the  public.  He  adopted  the  classical  or  the  romantic 
style  as  need  required,  sometimes  using  prose,  sometimes  iambics, 
sometimes  both  in  turn,  sometimes  other  rhythms.  In ‘Tasso’s 
Tod’  he  tried  to  write  like  Goethe,  and  with  his  trilogy  of 
‘  Cromwell  ’  he  trenched  on  Shakspeare’s  special  province.  He 
borrowed  from  Calderon  and  he  also  revived  the  style  which  Lessing 
had  adopted  in  ‘  Miss  Sara  Sampson.’  In  ‘  Der  Muller  und  sein  Kind ' 


VOL.  11. 


x 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


he  furnished  the  public  with  a  popular  piece  akin  to  the  Fate 


tragedies,  and  teeming  with  superstitions,  portents  and  ghosts.  He 
put  the  story  of  Genovefa  on  the  stage,  a  task  which  had  been  vainly 
attempted  by  Maler  Muller  and  Tieck.  Following  the  example 
of  Fouqud,  F.  R.  Hermann,  J.  W.  Muller  and  Chr.  F.  Eichhorn,  he 
diamatised  the  legend  of  Siegfried  and  Kriemhild,  retaining  to  a 
great  extent  the  words  of  the  Nibelungenlied,  but  at  the  same 
time  putting  in  so  much  padding,  that  the  whole  produces  on 
us  the  same  kind  of  impression  as  Gounod’s  ‘  Faust/  when 
Goethe’s  own  lines  are  dimly  discerned  through  the  double  trans¬ 
lation.  The  reward  for  all  these  tours  de  force  of  Raupach’s  was 


oblivion. 


Against  the  German  stage  as  it  was  between  1820  and  1830 
Platen  wrote  his  Aristophanic  comedies,  ‘  Die  verhangnissvolle 
Platen’s  Gabel’  (The  Fatal  Fork)  ridiculing  the  Fate- 
satirical  tragedies  and  more  especially  Grillparzer’s  ‘Ahnfrau/ 
comedies.  anc[  <  p)er  r0mantische  Oedipus  ’  directed  against  the 
Shakspearian  imitations,  particularly  against  Immermann  or  ;Nim- 
mermann  ’  as  Platen  called  him.  Immermann  did  not  abstain  from 
replying,  and  was  seconded  by  Heine.  We  are  struck  with  the 
unfairness  on  both  sides,  but  we  can  also  enjoy  these  polemical 
productions  purely  for  their  artistic  merits.  These  comedies  of 
Platen’s  must  be  reckoned  among  the  most  original  that  we  possess; 
they  contain  verses  of  wonderful  harmony  along  with  effective  carica¬ 
tures  and  brilliant  wit,  while  at  the  same  time  we  find  serious  thoughts 
and  the  highest  ideal  of  the  value  of  art  expressed  in  fascinating 
language.  Platen’s  original  plays  do  not  show  the  same  talent  and 
were  never  popular. 

In  1821  Tieck  published  Heinrich  von  Kleist’s  posthumous 
works,  and  in  1826  his  collected  works.  From  that  time  on  Kleist 
has  become  ever  dearer  to  the  hearts  of  the  German  people,  and 
a  closer  acquaintance  with  his  works  has  ever  raised  his  fame 
higher.  He  was  a  tragic  poet  and  had  a  tragic  fate ;  he  com¬ 
mitted  suicide  at  the  early  age  of  thirty-four.  He  did  not  begin 


his  studies  till  his  twenty-second  year,  and  then  the 
Kantian  philosophy,  from  which  Schiller  derived 


Kleist’s  life. 


strength  and  support,  drove  him  to  despair.  Alternately  buoyed 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Drama. 


3°7 


up  by  the  brighest  hopes  and  despondent  almost  to  madness,  he 
at  length  resigned  himself  to  the  obscurity  of  a  small  government 
office;  but  this  could  not  satisfy  him  permanently.  He  was  in 
Konigsberg  at  the  time  of  the  humiliation  of  Prussia  by  Napoleon; 
in  July,  1807,  he  went  to  Dresden,  where  he  soon  became  intimate 
with  Tieck  and  other  authors,  and  worked  as  editor  of  a  newspaper. 
But  in  1809  he  migrated  to  Austria,  which  at  that  time  was  fighting 
against  Napoleon.  Thither  he  took  with  him  political  pamphlets 
breathing  the  same  spirit  as  Arndt’s,  in  which  he  reproached  the 
Germans  for  their  want  of  patriotism  and  poured  out  on  Napoleon 
all  the  vials  of  his  wrath.  But  the  battle  of  Wasfram  crushed  all 

o 

hopes  of  deliverance,  and  Kleist  returned  to  Berlin  and  resumed 
his  work  as  a  journalist.  His  poetic  efforts  meeting  with  no 
encouragement  or  applause,  and  his  family  refusing  to  help  him 
any  longer,  he  lost  all  hope  for  himself,  his  art  and  his  fatherland. 
After  the  alliance  of  Prussia  with  France  he  cared  to  live  no 
longer.  The  thought  of  suicide  had  for  years  been  familiar 
to  him,  and  now,  when  a  morbid-minded  lady-friend  of  his 
besought  him  in  a  moment  of  excitement  to  kill  her,  he  promised 
to  do  so,  and  shot  her  first  and  then  himself  on  the  twenty-first  of 
November,  1811. 

Kleist  wrote  a  few  lyric  poems,  a  number  of  tales  and  seven 
dramas.  The  first  of  these,  ‘Die  Familie  Schroffen-  Kleist’s 

stein,’  appeared  in  1803 ;  it  treated  the  same  plays, 
theme  as  ‘  Romeo  and  Juliet/  and  produced  a  great  sensation  in 
certain  circles.  His  ‘Amphitryon’  (1807),  suggested  by  Moliere, 
is  not  very  successful  in  its  attempt  to  give  a  serious  turn  to  a 
frivolous  farce.  In  his  ‘  Penthesilea  ’  (1808)  an  Amazon-Queen 
tears  to  pieces  with  her  own  teeth  the  hero  Achilles,  whom  she 
passionately  loves.  ‘  Kathchen  von  Heilbronn  ’  ( 1 8 1  o),  a  chivalrous 
drama  bearing  many  points  of  resemblance  to  the  ‘  Maid  ot 
Orleans/  is  a  story  of  devoted  love.  ‘  Der  zerbrochene  Krug  ’ 
(1811)  is  a  comedy  of  rustic  life,  and  represents  a  trial  at  law 
in  which  the  judge  himself  turns  out  to  be  the  culprit.  Kleist’s 
two  last  plays  were  ‘  Die  Hermannsschlacht  ’  and  ‘  Der  Prinz 
von  Homburg/  both  of  which  were  first  made  known  after  his 
death,  by  Tieck.  The  first  of  these  dramas  is  full  af  passionate 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


3°8 

hatred  of  the  French,  and  gives  a  picture  of  the  struggle  against 
the  oppressor  Napoleon,  such  as  Kleist  imagined  him,  cunning, 
cruel,  inhuman,  unscrupulous.  ‘  Der  Prinz  von  Homburg,’  on  the 
contrary,  breathes  a  spirit  of  love  and  humanity,  of  devotion  to 
Prussia  and  respect  for  the  house  of  Hohenzollern.  Prussia  had 
not  been  thus  glorified  in  German  poetry  since  the  time  of  the 
Grenadier-songs  and  ‘  Minna  von  Barnhelm.’ 

Kleist  showed  remarkable  talent  in  more  than  one  respect. 
His  language  possesses  a  peculiar  charm,  though  he  had  not  a 
sure  command  of  the  elements  of  German  grammar, 
cellences  His  presentment  of  reality  is  very  powerful,  yet  he 

as  a  can  also  transport  us  by  one  single  stroke  into  a 

dramatist.  completely  ideal  sphere.  His  style  is  emphatic,  without 
ever  degenerating  into  rhetorical  declamation.  His  was  a  manly 
nature  like  Lessing’s  and  Schiller’s,  but  much  more  rugged,  more 
decided,  more  resolved  not  to  yield  anything  to  the  degeneracy 
of  the  time.  He  does  not  wish  to  touch  our  hearts,  but  to  storm 
them  by  tragic  force.  He  develops  his  characters  to  the  furthest 
extreme,  stopping  short  at  no  horror  or  crime.  He  does  not 
mind  wounding  the  feelings  of  the  public;  he  only  takes  care 
to  place  the  pleasing  by  the  side  of  the  horrible,  so  as  to 
produce  an  aesthetic  balance.  Kleist  was  in  many  respects 
a  son  of  the  eighteenth  century;  he,  too,  had  been  filled  with 
enthusiasm  for  Rousseau,  and  was  thoroughly  tolerant  and 
humane.  In  his  attacks  on  heroic  stoicism  he  goes  further 
than  any  other  man  of  his  time.  ‘Equanimity,’  he  says,  ‘is  only 
the  virtue  of  athletes.’  Lessing  had  already  drawn  attention 
to  the  Greek  heroes  who  do  not  suppress  their  anguish,  but 
cry  and  weep  like  children,  and  in  his  ‘  Prince  of  Homburg  ’ 
Kleist  did  not  shrink  from  representing  a  man  who  is  otherwise 
impetuous,  brave  and  victorious,  as  panic-stricken  by  the  dread 
of  death. 

Like  the  poets  of  the  £  period  of  genius,’  Kleist  places  the  heart 
His  above  the  understanding.  But  the  heart  does  not  always 
manner  speak  clearly,  and  sometimes  counsels  wrong.  A  man 
and  style.  may  have  actecj  on  qie  impulse  of  his  heart  and  yet,  when 

confronted  by  his  deed,  may  be  terrified  to  despair.  Kleist  must 


The  Drama. 


Ch.  XIII.] 


3°  9 


have  had  such  experiences  himself,  for  he  often  describes  them. 
(See  *  Amphitryon  ’  and  ‘  Penthesilea.’) 

As  an  artist,  too,  Kleist  shows  kinship  with  the  poets  of  the 
*  Storm  and  Stress  ’  movement.  He  is  far  removed,  it  is  true, 
from  that  negligence  of  form  which  was  continued  in  so  many 
of  the  romanticists,  far  removed  from  that  illusion  which  even 
Achim  von  Arnim  shared,  that  genius  could  write  by  the  light  of 
its  own  nature  and  need  not  trouble  about  rules.  In  this  respect 
Kleist  is  rather  a  follower  of  the  ancients  and  of  Shakspeare, 
Lessing,  Schiller,  and,  to  a  less  degree,  of  Goethe.  His  dialogue 
sometimes  reminds  us  of  Lessing.  In  his  glorious  fragment 
‘  Robert  Guiscard  ’  he  attempted,  like  Schiller,  to  revive  the  classical 
chorus,  and  in  his  ‘  Penthesilea  ’  he  depicted  a  female  warrior  as 
Schiller  had  done  in  his  ‘  Maid  of  Orleans.’  In  spite  of  these 
points  of  resemblance,  however,  Kleist  stands  on  different  ground 
to  Schiller;  he  is  a  realist,  that  is  to  say,  he  delineates  living 
individuals,  while  Schiller  was  an  idealist  and  pourtrayed  abstract 
types  of  character.  Kleist  aimed  at  copying  the  great  phenomena 
of  human  life  as  he  saw  it  in  his  own  experience,  or  fancied  it 
in  his  powerful  imagination.  His  plays  continued,  in  some 
respects,  the  naturalism  started  by  Goethe’s  ‘ Gotz.’  He  comes 
nearer  to  Shakspeare  than  any  other  modern  dramatist,  but  his 
dissonances  are  harsher  and  his  harmonies  softer.  He  is  not  so 
objective  as  Shakspeare,  and  has  read  less  in  the  book  of  human 
nature,  and  in  consequence  draws  his  characters  more  from  his 
own  heart;  but  for  him  they  acquire  quite  an  objective  existence 
and  confront  him  like  ghosts,  whose  features  stamp  themselves 
with  startling  clearness  on  a  timid  imagination,  to  be  revived 
again  and  again  in  the  memory.  There  are  few  lyrical  passages 
or  soliloquies  in  Kleist’s  dramas,  especially  in  the  later  ones ; 
his  plays  are  the  opposite  extreme  of  psychological  dramas  like 
Goethe’s  ‘  Iphigenie’  and  ‘Tasso.’ 

It  was  a  fatal  misfortune  both  for  the  German  drama  and  for 
Kleist  that  Goethe  could  not  interest  himself  in  his  Goethe's 
favour.  On  the  2nd  of  March,  1808,  ‘  Der  Zerbrochene  antipathy 
Krug’  was  performed  at  Weimar,  but  it  was  an  entire  to  Kleist- 
failure,  and  the  author  only  excited  horror  and  disgust  in 


310 


Romanticism . 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Goethe’s  mind.  Goethe’s  antipathy  is  easily  to  be  accounted  for. 
The  literary  revolution,  which  he  had  himself  ushered  in  with 
‘  Gotz,’  still  continued  to  exercise  its  influence,  and  Kleist  was 
moulded  by  its  tendencies  :  but  Goethe  had  long  since  returned 
to  those  classical  traditions  with  which  his  youthful  temerity  had 
led  him  to  break,  and  accordingly  he  now  rejected  whatever  in 
the  least  violated  the  standards  of  classicism.  Zacharias  Werner 
obeyed  Goethe ;  Kleist  did  not,  and  hence  he  was  doomed. 

Another  young  dramatist  of  this  period  produced  a  far  more 
Franz  favourable  impression  on  Goethe :  this  was  Franz 
Griiiparzer.  Grillparzer  of  Vienna,  who  was  deeply  touched  by  the 
warm  reception  which  he  met  with  from  the  great  poet  in  the 
autumn  of  1826.  In  the  person  of  Grillparzer,  Austria,  which  had 
for  a  long  time  been  unrepresented  in  German  literature,  came 
once  more  to  the  front.  Since  the  sixteenth  century  the  Austrian 
Court  had  only  favoured  Italians;  even  Abraham  a  Sancta  Clara 
was  not  an  Austrian  by  birth,  and  men  like  Michael  Denis 
(vol.  ii,  p.  57),  Aloysius  Blumauer  (vol.  ii,  p.  282),  or  Johann 
Alxinger,  the  latter  a  writer  of  epics  in  Wieland’s  style,  were  not 
authors  of  any  great  reputation.  The  only  form  of  literature  that 
had  much  life  in  Austria  was  the  drama. 

Vienna  was  one  of  the  places  where  the  German  popular  drama 
flourished  most,  and  the  Viennese  public  remained 
loyally  attached  to  Harlequin  and  his  improvised  buf¬ 
foonery.  Gottsched’s  reforms  were  slow  in  making 
their  way  there.  The  first  so-called  regular  drama 
was  performed  there  in  1747,  and  in  1748  the  most 
eminent  actors  of  Neuber’s  scattered  troop  came  to  Vienna,  where¬ 
upon  a  lengthy  conflict  began  against  the  farce  and  against  the 
clown,  who  wished  to  assert  his  position  even  in  the  regular  drama. 
As  late  as  1763  we  find  the  clown  taking  the  place  of  the  servant 
Norton  in  the  performance  of  ‘  Miss  Sara  Sampson,’ 
and  not  till  1770  was  the  victory  of  the  reforming 
party  complete.  After  that  the  Viennese  stage  still 
retained  Tor  some  time  the  French  character  which 
Gottsched’s  reforms  had  given  it.  From  1752  to  1772  a  per¬ 
manent  troop  of  French  actors  occupied  the  present  Burg-Theater, 


Popular 
character 
of  the 
drama  in 
Vienna. 


French 
infhience 
after  1770. 
Ayrenhoff. 


Ch.  XIT1.] 


The  Drama. 


31 1 

and  when  they  were  dismissed,  the  nobility,  who  had  been  the  chief 
patrons  of  the  French  plays,  had  to  be  propitiated  by  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  German  plays  written  entirely  in  the  French  style. 
From  the  very  ranks  of  the  Austrian  nobility  there  appeared  a 
dramatist  who  was  a  thorough-going  adherent  of  French  classicism, 
Cornelius  Hermann  von  Ayrenhoff.  His  comedy,  ‘  Die  Post- 
kutsche,’  had  the  honour  of  winning  the  praise  of  Frederick 
the  Great.  Ayrenhoff  produced  tragedies  and  comedies  after 
the  style  of  Corneille,  and  died  in  1819  as  Lieutenant-Fieldmarshal. 
But  the  Burg-Theater  soon  triumphed  over  these  French  pre¬ 
judices,  and  impartially  aimed  at  the  best.  When  in  1776  it 
became  the  Court  and  National  Theatre,  one  of 
its  actors,  Muller  by  name,  travelled,  under  the  Court  and 

commission  of  Prince  Kaunitz,  through  Germany,  National 

•  •  .  -  •  •  Theatre 

making  engagements  with  actors  ;  he  visited  Lessing, 

took  counsel  with  him,  and  carried  some  of  his  advice  into  effect 
on  his  return.  Various  Viennese  actors  proved  themselves  fertile 
playwrights.  Outside  the  theatre  also  there  was  great  activity 
in  dramatic  production,  and  though  nothing  of  first-class  merit 
was  produced,  yet  the  average  of  writing  was  fair,  and  the 
necessities  of  the  real  stage  were  always  kept  in  view.  Shakspeare, 
Lessing,  Goethe,  and  Schiller  were  soon  represented  in  the  reper¬ 
toire  of  the  Court  Theatre,  and  most  of  Mozart’s  operas  were  put 
on  the  stage  for  the  first  time.  The  directors  were  very  cautious 
about  admitting  plays  of  what  they  considered  doubtful  taste,  or 
dangerous  political  views  ;  all  Schiller’s  plays  except  ‘  Fiesco ' 
were  for  a  long  time  excluded.  The  ‘Maid  of  Orleans’  was  only 
countenanced  with  some  careful  alterations  and  suppression  of 
the  author’s  name,  and  ‘Wilhelm  Tell’  was  not  allowed  to  be 
acted  till  1827. 

An  Austrian  dramatist  of  high  aspirations,  Heinrich  Joseph  von 
Collin,  produced  a  play,  ‘Regulus’  (1801),  which  won  great 
applause,  but  he  never  improved  upon  this  first  pro¬ 
duction.  Joseph  Schreyvogel,  on  the  contrary,  produced 
nothing  of  his  own  worth  noticing,  though  his  taste  and  powers 
of  criticism  secured  him  lasting  and  powerful  influence.  The 
years  from  1814  to  1832,  in  which  he  took  part  in  the  manage- 


Schreyvogel. 


312  - 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


ment  of  the  Burg-Theater,  were  a  halcyon  period  in  the  career 
of  that  institution.  His  general  views  were  those  of  Lessing; 
he  was  an  enemy  of  romanticism,  and  despised  popular  and 
old  German  poetry.  He  freely  criticised  Goethe  and  Schiller, 
and  the  classical  dramas  of  the  latter  alone  met  with  his  entire 
approval. 

Schreyvogel’s  influence  determined  the  artistic  development  of 
Franz  Grillparzer,  and  raised  him  from  the  first  above 

GB&PdiC  u6P 

of  the  one-sided  tendencies  of  the  literary  revolution  and 
Grillparzer’s  0f  Romanticism.  1  hough  a  disciple  of  the  German 
diamas.  classicists,  Grillparzer  would  never  have  ventured  to 
produce  a  play  with  so  little  action  as  Goethe’s  ‘  Iphigenie  *  or 
‘  Tasso.’  His  language  seldom  reaches  a  high  level  of  perfection, 
though  it  is  always  in  keeping  with  the  dramatic  situation.  In 
moments  of  the  deepest  emotion  his  characters  are  either  dumb  or 
else  utter  themselves  with  the  utmost  brevity,  and  his  dialogue  is 
throughout  more  natural  than  Kleist’s.  Like  Kleist  he  was  a  perfect 
master  of  dramatic  technique,  but,  being  a  man  of  gentler  mould 
than  Kleist,  he  was  more  accommodating  to  the  likings  of  the  public. 
Though  perhaps  inferior  to  that  writer  in  originality  and  power,  he 
had  a  healthy  mind  which  kept  him  free  from  all  exaggeration.  He 
lived  from  1791  to  1872,  and  made  a  modest  career  as  an  official; 
it  was  only  late  in  life  that  he  enjoyed,  with  some  feeling  of  bitter¬ 
ness,  the  reward  of  assured  fame.  He  felt  himself  cramped  in  a 
variety  of  ways  in  his  much-loved  native  land.  Vienna  had  an 
enervating  effect  on  his  mind,  and  in  addit’on  to  this  an  arbitrary 
censorship  of  the  press  had  always  to  be  taken  into  account. 

His  chief  Seven  of  his  plays  were  performed  between  the  years 
plays.  1817  and  1834  ;  these  were  ‘  Die  Ahnfrau,’  ‘Sappho/ 
the  trilogy  ‘  Das  goldene  Vliess  ’  (the  story  of  Jason  and 
Medea),  ‘  Konig  Ottokar’s  Gliick  und  Ende/  ‘  Ein  treuer  Diener 
seines  Herrn,’  ‘  Des  Meeres  und  der  Liebe  Wellen  ’  (the  story  of 
Hero  and  Leander),  and  ‘  Der  Traum  ein  Leben.’  There  followed 
in  1840  a  comedy  drawn  from  Merovingian  history  entitled,  ‘  Weh 
dem  der  ltigt/  which  was  a  failure,  and  three  tragedies  which  were 
not  made  known  till  after  his  death.  The  above  titles  show  that  in 
the  choice  of  his  subjects  he  partly  adhered  to  the  old  traditions  of 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Drama. 


3i3 


the  Renaissance-drama,  and  partly  met  the  new  interest  taken  by 
his  contemporaries  in  the  national  past,  devoting  his  attention,  how¬ 
ever,  entirely  to  Austrian  history.  ‘  Die  Ahnfrau  ’  and  ‘  Der  Traum 
ein  Leben  ’  form  a  special  group  in  which  the  action  hurries  on 
tumultuously;  the  four-footed  trochaic  metre  in  which  they  are 
written  connects  them  with  the  Spanish  dramatic  form,  which 
Milliner’s  ‘  Schuld  ’  and  the  translations  of  Calderon  had  brought 
into  fashion.  When  well  acted  the  *  Ahnfrau  ’  produces  even  now 
a  great  effect,  and  Grillparzer  has  written  nothing  else  of  the  same 
tragic  power  as  the  scene  in  which  the  robber  Jaromir  is  maddened 
by  the  thought  that  he  has  unwittingly  killed  his  own  father. 
In  his  later  plays  Grillparzer  concentrated  his  powers  His 
more  and  more  on  the  careful  drawing  of  character,  character- 
but  his  figures  were  always  narrowly  individual,  for  drawins- 
he  tried  to  make  them  true  to  life  by  copying  them  from  the  types 
of  Viennese  society.  While  Schiller  aimed  at  making  his  tragic 
heroes  appeal  to  the  human  sympathies  of  his  audience,  Grill¬ 
parzer  preferred  to  lower  them  a  little,  and  sometimes  even  set  them 
in  an  unattractive  light,  as  though  he  wished  to  make  it  less  pain¬ 
ful  to  his  audience  to  see  them  in  distress.  Their  misfortunes  are 
frequently  the  result  of  external  circumstances,  of  chance,  misun¬ 
derstanding,  intrigue,  of  the  vices  of  others,  or  the  weakness  of  those 
whose  strength  had  been  relied  upon,  or  finally  of  well-devised 
measures  taken  by  those  who  have  to  guard  the  law.  If  Grillparzer 
had  written  a  ‘  Mary  Stuart,’  Mary’s  character  would  have  been 
lowered  and  Elizabeth’s  raised ;  at  least  this  is  the  way  in 
which  he  treated  a  similar  contrast  between  Ottokar  of  Bohemia 
and  Rudolph  von  Hapsburg.  While  with  Schiller  ruin  is  the  fate 
of  the  beautiful  upon  earth,  with  Grillparzer  we  find  ourselves  in  a 
very  well-arranged  world,  in  which  evil  is  sure  to  be  punished  and 
good  rewarded.  But  good  means  with  him  the  domestic  virtues, 
the  simple  mind,  the  honest  heart  which  he  specially  praises  in  the 
Austrians ;  evil,  on  the  other  hand,  means  for  him  self-assertion, 
thirst  for  fame,  inordinate  ambition,  which  is  sure  to  lead  to  sin  and 
misery.  In  his  play,  ‘Der  Traum  ein  Leben/  the  moral  of  which 
is  as  usual  not  to  be  over-ambitious,  Grillparzer  produces  a  weird 
effect  by  so  arranging  his  plot  that  .the  spectator  does  not  know 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


3T4 


where  waking  life  ends  and  dream-life  begins,  and  so  mistakes  as 
real  all  the  horrors  of  the  dream.  This  play  and  the  ‘  Ahnfrau  ’ 
most  remind  us  of  the  Romanticists.  Grillparzer  learned  how  to 
create  such  thrilling  effects  as  they  contain  partly  from  E.  T.  A. 
Hoffman  and  partly  in  the  Leopoldstadt  theatre,  which  as  a  boy  he 
frequented. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  regular  drama  triumphed  in  Vienna 
Farce  in  about  1770.  But  though  Harlequin  had  died  out, 

Vienna.  yet  burlesque  lived  on.  Philip  Hafner’s  comedies 
were  quite  a  continuation  of  the  old  popular  drama,  only  that  they 
did  not  trust  for  the  dialogue  to  the  actors’  powers  of  extemporising. 
These  plays  were  printed  again  and  again,  and  continually  revived 
on  the  stage.  In  1780  Karl  von  Marinelli  founded  the  Leopold¬ 
stadt  theatre,  which  became  the  favourite  home  of  farce.  The 
farces  acted  on  its  boards  reflected  the  harmless  gaiety  of  Viennese 
life,  ridiculed  the  Hungarians  and  Bohemians,  revived  the  favourite 
old  flying  machines,  and  teemed  with  transformations,  ghosts  and 
marvels.  In  them  Harlequin  came  to  life  again,  under  the  name  of 
Kasperl,  as  an  Austrian  peasant  boy,  awkward  and  stupid,  but  with 
a  certain  natural  cunning,  who  was  generally,  like  Harlequin,  made 
the  servant  of  the  hero. 

In  the  nineteenth  century  farce-writing  received  a  great  impulse. 
The  popular  stage  found  its  classical  author,  shortly  after  the 
Ferdinand  appearance  of  Grillparzer,  in  the  person  of  Ferdinand 
Raimund’s  Raimund.  He  was  himself  an  actor  like  Shakspeare 
plays.  ancj  Moliere,  and  was  perhaps  not  much  inferior  to 
them  in  natural  talent,  but  his  very  defective  education  prevented  his 
ever  rising  to  the  highest  work.  He  began  by  altering  to  his 
requirements  parts  which  he  was  going  to  act,  inserting  new  scenes, 
and  writing  a  few  new  songs.  Then  for  one  of  his  benefits, 
finding  no  piece  that  quite  met  his  approval,  he  wrote  the  entirely 
original  play  entitled  ‘  Der  Barometermacher  auf  der  Zauberinsel/ 
This  was  in  1823,  and  between  that  year  and  1834  he  wrote 
seven  more  pieces,  among  which  ‘  Der  Diamant  des  Geisterkonigs,’ 

‘  Das  Madchen  aus  der  Feenwelt,’  ‘  Der  Alpenkonig  und  der 
Menschenfeind/  and  ‘  Der  Verschwender,’  are  the  most  worthy  of 
notice.  Raimund  was  a  year  older  than  Grillparzer.  In  1836, 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Drama. 


3*5 


in  a  fit  of  melancholy,  he  committed  suicide.  He  was  excitable, 
sensitive,  and  filled  with  burning  ambition.  He  was  a  virtuoso  in 
his  mastery  of  the  Austrian  dialect,  and  showed  great  originality  in 
the  dialect-farces  which  he  wrote;  but  he  aspired  higher  than  this, 
and  accordingly  took  to  writing  a  high-flown  style  of  German 
in  iambic  rhythm,  which  sounds  very  stilted  and  unnatural. 
He  was  thoroughly  at  home  in  the  world  of  the  His 
bourgeoisie  and  of  the  peasantry,  and  created  from  character- 
it  wonderfully  real  and  life-like  characters;  when,  drawing, 
however,  he  tried  to  quit  this  sphere  and  draw  ideal  figures,  he  was 
generally  unsuccessful.  He  was  excellent  in  farce,  but  he  did 
not  care  to  be  a  mere  jester,  and  his  recoil  from  the  character 
sometimes  carried  him  into  tragedy,  to  the  great  offence  of  the 
particular  audiences  for  whom  he  wrote.  He  succeeded  in  making 
the  magical  farce  really  interesting  by  humanising  his  magicians, 
ghosts,  and  fairies  as  thoroughly  and  as  unhesitatingly  as  Hans 
Sachs  did  sacred  personages;  in  fact  he  simply  transplanted 
into  supernatural  regions  the  society  of  the  Viennese  bourgeoisie, 
with  all  their  manners  and  customs,  their  standing  witticisms 
and  conventionalities,  their  musical  soirees,  and  their  hackney 
coaches.  But  in  his  heart  he  despised  this  bourgeois  world  of 
which  and  for  which  he  wrote  with  such  brilliant  imagination,  and 
in  his  ‘ Alpen-konig  ’  he  finally  soared  above  it.  The  Alp-king  is  a 
sublimation  of  human  nature,  something  like  an  ancient  god. 
The  delineation  of  the  misanthrope  whom  the  Alp-king  converts 
from  his  errors,  rivals  Shakspeare’s  Tirnon  and  Mohere’s  Misan¬ 
thrope  ;  here  Raimund  was  writing  from  his  own  personal 
experience,  and  he  showed  great  genius  and  skill  in  overcoming 
the  difficulties  which  beset  the  conception  and  development  of 
a  character  who  is  at  once  to  excite  our  pity  and  ridicule. 
The  magic  element  retreats  still  further  into  the  background  in 
1  Der  Verschwender  ’  (The  Spendthrift),  in  which  the  hero’s  fate 
depends  entirely  on  his  own  character.  This  play  is  Raimund’s 
masterpiece ;  it  is  full  of  exciting  action,  and  at  the  same  time 
everything  is  made  subservient  to  the  development  of  a  character ; 
the  other  figures  are  many  and  various,  some  of  them  only 
sketched,  but  all  parts  out  of  which  a  capable  actor  could  make 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


316 


something.  The  character  of  Valentine,  the  spendthrift’s  faithful 
servant,  is  a  sort  of  idealised  Hanswurst. 

While  the  popular  drama  with  its  old  characters  was  thus 
experiencing  a  revival  of  prosperity,  Goethe  was  busy  in  com¬ 
pleting  one  of  his  oldest  theatrical  projects,  which  the  popular 
Goethe’s  stage  had  first  suggested  to  him,  and  was  finally 
‘Faust/  recasting  a  subject  at  which  many  of  his  contempo¬ 
raries  had  tried  their  hand  without  marked  success,  namely,  the 
legend  of  Dr.  Faustus. 

Periods  of  great  literary  activity,  but  of  crude  taste,  have  fre¬ 
quently  created  the  rough  material  out  of  which  more  cultured 
periods  have  formed  their  most  beautiful  works  of  art.  The 
epoch  of  the  migration  bequeathed  to  after  ages  the  German 
heroic  legends.  The  rule  of  Charlemagne  and  his  successors 
was  the  source  of  the  French  national  epics,  and  furnished  both 
Old  French  and  Middle  High-German  poetry  with  welcome 
subjects.  It  was  the  Germany  of  the  sixteenth  century  which 
produced  the  living  Dr.  Faustus,  the  original  of  that  legendary 
character  who  was  finally  immortalised  by  the  greatest  poet  of  the 
History  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries.  The  character 
of  tlie  of  Faust  is  a  connecting  link  between  two  periods  of 

Faust  German  literature,  and  its  gradual  progress  can  be 

legend.  traced  through  both  periods,  from  the  lowest  depths 
of  mere  popular  buffoonery  to  the  loftiest  heights  of  poetic  art. 

This  mysterious  personage  was  first  introduced  into  literature 
through  the  ‘History  of  Dr.  Faustus,  the  notorious  magician  and 
master  of  the  Black  Art,’  which  appeared  at  Frankfurt-on-the- 
Main  in  the  year  1587,  and  was  the  work  of  a  very  orthodox 
Protestant.  This  work  is  a  confused  compilation  of  the  vaiious 
anecdotes  current  about  Dr.  Faustus,  and  also  probably  of  a  few 
written  records  concerning  him.  Georg  Rudolph  Widmann  of 
Schwabisch  Hall,  a  fanatical  Lutheran,  recast  the  ‘  History’  in 
1599,  adding  words  of  warning  and  exhortation  along  with  several 
notes  on  magic,  which  were  further  added  to  in  1674  by  the 
Niirnberg  Doctor,  Johann  N;colaus  Pfitzer.  In  1 728  an  author,  who 
concealed  his  real  personality  under  the  name  of  £  A  Christian 
Believer  ’  (Ein  Christlich  Meynender),  struck  out  all  the  appended 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Drama. 


317 


Marlowe’s 
‘  Faust  ’ 
and  the 
German 
popular 
drama. 


Sketch 
of  the 
popular 
drama  of 
‘  Faust.’ 


learned  matter,  and  published  an  abridgment  of  the  ‘History/  which 
was  repeatedly  printed  and  modernised,  and  extensively  sold  at  the 
book-fairs  as  a  ‘  People's  Book/  But  meanwhile  the  story  had 
naturalised  itself  under  another  form  in  the  minds  of  the  German 
public. 

Soon  after  its  first  appearance  in  Germany,  the  ‘History’  had 
become  known  in  England,  and  Christopher  Marlowe 
made  it  the  basis  of  a  tragedy,  which  was  brought  to 
Germany  by  English  comedians  not  later  than  the 
beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century;  there,  after 
passing  through  the  various  phases  which  marked  the 
development  of  the  popular  drama,  it  was  finally 
banished  from  the  real  stage,  and  became  a  puppet-play,  which  it 
continues  to  be  to  the  present  day.  The  Faust  of 
the  popular  drama  is  a  Professor  in  Wittenberg, 
who,  being  discontented  with  science,  declares  he  will 
turn  his  attention  to  magic ;  his  good  genius  warns 
him  against  it,  his  bad  genius  spurs  him  on ;  at  this 
very  moment  his  servant  Wagner  announces  the  arrival  of  two 
students  who  hand  him  a  long  wished-for  book  of  magic.  With 
the  help  of  this  book  he  conjures  up  the  spirits,  the  fleetest  of 
which  he  is  willing  to  take  into  his  service;  at  length  Mephistopheles, 
who  is  as  swift  as  thought,  satisfies  his  demands.  Then  this 
spirit  fetches  up  the  conditions  of  the  contract  from  the  Prince  of 
Hell;  he  is  to  serve  Faust  for  twenty-four  years,  at  the  end  ol 
which  period  the  doctor  is  to  fall  a  prey  to  the  powers  of  hell. 
The  contract  being  signed,  Faust  wishes  to  visit  a  prince’s  court, 
and  Mephistopheles  conducts  him  through  the  air  to  the  court  of 
Parma,  where  Faust  delights  the  prince  by  his  magic  art,  and  con¬ 
jures  up  before  him  figures  of  bygone  ages,  amongst  them  the  Greek 
Helena.  He  then  returns  to  Wittenberg,  where  he  finds  his  servant 
Wagner  again,  and  puts  to  Mephistopheles  embarrassing  questions 
about  hell  and  the  state  of  the  damned.  He  also  asks  for  infor¬ 
mation  about  heavenly  bliss;  this  Mephisto  refuses  to  give,  and 
when  Faust  insists  upon  it  he  flees.  Thereupon  Faust  resolves  to 
seek  mercy  from  heaven,  and  curses  magic.  Hell  hears  the 
curse,  and  Mephisto  again  approaches  while  Faust  is  praying. 


Romanticism . 


[Ch.  XIII. 


3'8 

and  offers  him,  though  in  vain,  a  sceptre  and  a  crown.  But 
Helena,  whom  Mephisto  summons  up  from  the  lower  world,  wins 
the  heart  of  Faust,  and  draws  him  away  from  penance ;  when  he 
tries  to  embrace  her,  however,  she  disappears.  At  last,  at  a 
time  when  he  is  entertaining  some  students,  Faust  feels  his 
end  approaching ;  the  twenty-one  years  are  now  over,  and  he  falls 
into  the  power  of  the  devil. 

Hanswurst  stands  as  a  foil  by  Faust’s  side,  and  parodies  him 
throughout  the  whole  piece.  Like  Faust  he  conjures  up  the  spirits, 
but  they  have  no  power  over  him.  The  contrast  between  the  two 
figures  culminates  in  the  last  scene ;  Hanswurst,  formerly  Faust’s 
servant,  has  now  become  a  night-watchman,  and  while  Faust’s  last 
hours  are  striking,  while  a  heavenly  voice  is  announcing  to  him  the 
last  judgment,  while  the  anguish  of  death  is  upon  him,  Hanswurst 
is  composedly  singing  the  night-watchman’s  song  and  enjoying 
himself  as  only  a  snug  Philistine  can.  The  moral  is  the  ordinary 
one :  do  not  indulge  in  too  lofty  aspirations,  for  they  lead  to 
damnation,  and  he  alone  is  happy  who  is  contented  with  little. 

It  was  in  this  form  that  Lessing  became  acquainted  with  the 
_  .  ,  popular  tragedv,  and  resolved  to  adapt  it  to  the 

fragment  of  regular  stage.  He  could  not  let  Faust  fall  a  prey  to 
a  drama  the  powrers  of  darkness,  for  that  was  to  openly  con- 
on  Faust.  ^emn  the  passion  for  truth  as  devilish.  In  the 
seventeenth  of  his  *  Litteraturbriefe,’  dated  the  sixteenth  of  Feb¬ 
ruary,  1759,  he  published  one  scene  of  the  play  as  he  planned  it, 
and  thereby  doubtless  incited  younger  poets  to  deal  with  the  same 
subject.  The  leaders  of  the  literary  revolution  found  in  Faust  a 
kindred  spirit,  a  strong  genius  with  high  aspirations,  who  forsook 
the  beaten  track,  and  rose,  like  a  Titan  in  revolt,  against  the 
ordinary  limits  of  humanity.  It  was  soon  announced  in  the  papers 
that  besides  Lessing,  both  Goethe  and  Maler  Muller  were  at  vTork 
on  a  ‘  Faust,’  and  some  anxiety  was  expressed  lest  rationalism 
should  suffer  in  consequence  of  the  introduction  on  the  stage  by 
poets  of  genius  of  the  devil  and  a  magician.  But  an  insignificant 
Viennese  writer  named  Paul  Weidmann  forestalled  both  these 
works  in  1775  with  an  ‘allegorical  drama,’  as  he  called  it,  a  miser¬ 
able  production  in  which  the  unities  of  time  and  place  were  care- 


Ch.XIII.] 


The  Drama . 


3T9 


by  other 
writers. 


fully  observed,  and  a  few  motives  tediously  spun  out.  In  177 6  and 

1778  Maler  Muller  published  two  fragments  of  his  dramatised  life 

of  Faust:  and  in  1790  a  fragment  of  the  first  part  of  m 

r  Treatment 

Goethe’s  *  Faust  ’  was  given  to  the  world.  The  former  of  the 
of  these  two  publications  excited  no  curiosity  as  Faust-legend 
to  what  the  whole  might  be,  the  latter  made  its  readers 
entertain  the  greatest  expectations  of  the  completed 
work.  A  third  dramatist  of  the  ‘  genius-period,’  Klinger,  had 
treated  the  same  subject,  not  in  a  drama  but  in  a  novel,  which 
appeared  in  1791  ;  it  represented  Faust  as  the  inventor  of  printing, 
and  conducted  him  through  a  maze  of  evil  doings,  some  conscious 
and  some  unconscious,  some  of  his  own  and  some  of  others’ 
doing,  to  hell.  Count  Julius  Soden  followed  in  Weidmann’s  and 
Klinger’s  steps  with  his  ‘popular  drama,’  published  in  1797  ;  here 
Faust  appears  as  an  enemy  of  tyrants  and  a  patriot,  who  displays 
great  bravery  in  conflict  with  the  rebellious  peasantry,  but  is  for  all 
that  carried  off  at  the  last  by  the  devil.  Johann  Friedrich  Schink, 
too,  a  violent  opponent  of  Romanticism,  adhered  to  Paul  Weid¬ 
mann’s  conception  in  his  ‘Johann  Faust  ’  completed  in  1804,  only 
that  he  raised  his  hero  to  a  higher  moral  level,  and  made  him 
stronger  in  resisting  temptation. 

At  length  in  1808  the  first  part  of  Goethe’s  ‘  Faust  ’  appeared  in 
its  completed  form.  This  did  not  deter  a  miserable 
poet,  Karl  Schone  by  name,  from  composing  in  1809 
a  new  ‘Romantic  Tragedy  of  Faust’  on  the  basis  of 
Klinger’s  novel.  August  Klingemann’s  ‘  Faust  ’  of 
1815,  a  skilfully  constructed  play,  also  reminds  us 
more  of  Klinger  and  the  popular  drama  than  of 
Goethe.  Klingemann  represented' Faust  as  the  inventor  of  print¬ 
ing,  as  did  also  the  fertile  writer  Julius  von  Voss,  who  wrote  a 
drama  on  the  same  subject  somewhat  later  (1823).  Contemporary 
with  this  drama  of  Voss,  C.  C.  L.  Schone  attempted  to  continue 
Goethe’s  Faust  in  Goethe’s  own  style,  and  his  miserable  production 
was  even  surpassed  in  worthlessness  by  a  similar  essay  on  the  part 
of  J.  D.  Hoffmann  in  1833.  Grabbe  was  foolish  enough  to  think  he 
would  produce  a  great  effect  by  introducing  Faust  and  Don  Juan  in 
the  same  drama,  and  by  making  them  rivals  in  love  (1829) ;  and  in 


First  part 
of  Goethe’s 
*  Faust  ’ 
appears 
complete 
in  1808. 


320 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


‘  Faust  ’ 
appears 
complete 
in  1832. 


1832  Karl  von  Holtei  worked  up  the  story  of  Faust  into  a  weak 
melodrama.  Meanwhile,  in  1827  and  1828  fragments 

ofetoetheC  seconc^  part  °f  Goethe’s  ‘  Faust'  had  been  pub¬ 

lished,  and  after  his  death,  towards  the  end  of  1832, 
the  second  part  appeared  complete.  Forty-two  years 
thus  elapsed  between  the  publication  of  the  first  instal¬ 
ment  and  that  of  the  complete  work,  and  Goethe’s 
work  at  the  book  extended  over  a  still  longer  period. 

Goethe  was  acquainted  with  the  popular  drama,  and  with  the 
History  of  ‘  People’s  Book  ’  of  Faust.  He  took  up  the  story  about 
the  writing  the  same  time  that  he  began  to  work  at  ‘  Gotz,’  when 
of  Faust.  Shakspeare's  history-plays  were  his  models,  and  he 
thought  of  dramatising  the  story  of  Caesar’s  life.  At  this  time  he 
used  to  express  contempt  for  the  traditional  rules  of  dramatic  art, 
and  his  ‘Faust’  bears  clearly  the  stamp  of  this  period  of  his  develop¬ 
ment,  in  so  far  as  it  shows  a  disregard  of  all  theatrical  conventions, 
and  needs  alteration  and  re-arrangement  before  it  can  be  done 
justice  to  upon  the  stage. 

Goethe  began  with  a  rough  sketch  of  the  drama,  only  working 
out  a  bit  here  and  there,  and  that  in  prose.  But  when  he  came  to 
know  and  admire  Hans  Sachs,  he  resolved  to  clothe  this  old  German 
story  in  an  old  German  garb,  and  chose  doggrel  verse  for  the  purpose. 
In  the  autumn  of  1775  a  number  of  scenes  were  already  completed, 
but  in  Weimar  he  let  the  work  lie.  After  his  Italian  journey  he 
again  took  it  up,  and  gave  the  ‘  Fragment’  of  1790  its  provisional 
conclusion.  After  this  he  devoted  no  further  attention  to  the 
drama,  until  Schiller  urged  him  to  complete  it.  In  the  summer  of 
1797  he  sketched  out  a.  plan  for  the  whole  work,  both  first  and 
second  part,  and  took  it  up  afresh,  only  to  give  it  up  in  April,  1801. 
It  was  not  till  April,  1806,  that  it  was  so  far  advanced  that  the  first 
part  could  be  published.  Much  later,  in  1824,  he  resolved  to 
complete  the  second  part,  and  by  July,  1831,  this  too  had  been 
done. 

The  whole  plan  was  not  carried  out.  Important  scenes  which 
Goethe  had  had  in  view  are  wanting,  and  unevennesses  were  not 
smoothed  away.  It  is  when  taken  as  a  whole,  and  seen,  so  to 
speak,  from  a  distance,  that  the  poem  discloses  the  same  unity  as 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Drama. 


321 


the  Homeric  epics  or  the  Nibelungenlied  or  Gudrun.  The 
period  of  sixty  years  over  which  the  work  was  extended,  the 
frequent  interruptions  to  which  it  was  subjected,  and  the  variety  of 
moods  under  which  it  was  written,  have  prevented  '•  Faust'  from 
attaining  any  closer  unity  than  this.  In  most  of  the  first  part  we 
admire  the  sure,  bold  hand  of  the  young  or  mature  artist ;  in  the 
second  part,  along  with  marvellously  effective  scenes,  we  find 
weaker  portions,  in  which  the  hand  of  the  now  aged  master  seems 
to  tremble. 

Neither  the  Hans-Wurst  of  the  popular  drama  nor  the  Philistine 

condemnation  of  the  aspiring  human  mind  could 

r  0  Differences 

answer  Goethe’s  purpose.  He  could  not  any  more  than  fr0m  the 
Lessing  deliver  over  his  hero  to  the  devil  in  accordance  popular 
with  the  old  legend  and  the  popular  drama,  and  he  drama' 
therefore  from  the  beginning  prepares  us  for  a  final  reconciliation. 
The  popular  play,  following  the  Renaissance-style  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  contained  a  prelude  in  hell,  in  which  Charon  accuses  the 
furies,  i.  e.  the  devils,  before  Pluto,  who  thereupon  exhorts  them  to 
be  more  diligent,  or  even  specially  charges  them  with  the  task  of 
leading  Faust  astray.  Goethe,  on  the  contrary,  prefaces  his  work 
with  a  prologue  in  Heaven,  in  which,  with  the  boldness  sketch  of  the 
of  Hans  Sachs,  he  introduces  God  Almighty  Himself  first  part  of 
and  the  heavenly  hosts,  among  whom  the  devil  Faust. 
Mephisto  mingles.  We  learn  from  God’s  own  lips  that  Faust’s 
high  aspirations  are  pleasing  to  Him,  and  that  He  will  soon  lead 
him  from  the  darkness  in  which  he  gropes  into  light;  and  when 
Mephisto  receives  permission  to  tempt  Dr.  Faust,  we  know  that  he 
will  not  succeed  in  drawing  him  away  from  the  primal  Source  ol 
his  being,  that  the  devil  may  indeed  disquiet  an  aspiring  soul,  but 
cannot  entice  him  permanently  into  the  path  of  sin  and  error. 

Faust  is  next  introduced  to  us  as  a  scholar  among  his  books, 
and  as  in  Marlowe  and  the  popular  drama,  he  reveals  in  a 
monologue  his  dissatisfaction  with  all  knowledge  and  his  expecta¬ 
tions  of  magic.  He  has  in  his  possession  the  mysterious  book 
which  tells  him  how  to  conjure  up  the  spirits.  He  pronounces  an 
incantation ;  the  earth-spirit  appears,  gigantic  in  its  proportions ; 
Faust  cannot  at  first  endure  his  look,  but  he  nerves  himself  to  do 

VOL.  II.  Y 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


322 

so,  and  then  the  spirit  repels  him.  His  first  attempt  has  failed ;  his 
powerlessness  becomes  clear  to  him,  and  despair  takes  hold  of  his 
soul.  He  seizes  the  poison-cup,  and  is  in  the  very  act  of  raising  it 
to  his  lips,  when  the  neighbouring  church-bells  chime  out  and 
he  hears  the  tones  of  the  Easter  hymn  :  ‘  Christ  is  arisen !  ’  The 
remembrance  of  his  childhood’s  faith  and  happiness  deters  him 
from  taking  the  fatal  step.  He  bursts  into  tears,  exclaiming: 

‘  Earth  has  won  me  back  again !  ’  On  the  evening  of  Easter 
Sunday,  during  a  walk,  Mephisto  joins  him  in  the  shape  of  a 
poodle,  which  molests  him  at  his  work  when  he  gets  home ;  Faust, 
soon  perceiving  the  real  nature  of  the  animal,  pronounces  an 
incantation  over  him  as  in  the  old  ‘  People’s  Book,’  and  compels 
him  to  appear  in  human  form.  He  then  expresses  a  wish  to 
make  a  compact  with  him,  but  Mephisto  wishes  to  get  away, 
and  knows  how  to  escape.  A  great  University  function,  a 
public  disputation  in  which  Mephisto  should  again  appear,  was 
planned  by  Goethe,  but  never  carried  out,  and  as  the  play  stands, 
Mephisto’s  next  appearance  is  in  Faust’s  study.  A  compact 
is  then  concluded  by  which  Mephisto  enters  the  doctor’s  service ; 
as  long  as  the  latter  remains  discontented  the  compact  is  to  last, 
but  if  ever  in  calm  contentment  he  shall  say  to  the  moment : 
‘  Tarry  awhile,  thou  art  so  fair,’  he  is  at  once  to  fall  into  Mephisto’s 
power. 

Mephisto  then  drives  him  forth ;  he  is  to  leave  the  study  and  see 
something  of  real  life.  They  first  enter  a  tavern  and  join  a  com¬ 
pany  of  carousers  on  whom  Mephisto  plays  magical  tricks.  They 
go  on  to  a  witches’  kitchen,  where  Faust  drinks  a  draught  of  reju¬ 
venescence.  With  the  renewal  of  youth,  love  asserts  its  power  over 
him,  and,  as  in  the  ‘  People’s  Book,’  he  is  consumed  by  a  passion 
for  a  girl  of  the  burgher  class ;  Gretchen’s  innocence  purifies  his 
heart,  but  the  devil  entices  him  to  sin ;  he  succumbs  and  ruins 
Gretchen.  Goethe  hardly  mentions  the  remorse  and  despair  which 
we  must  imagine  his  hero  to  feel  on  account  of  the  wrong  he  has 
done  to  an  innocent  girl ;  his  repentance  falls  between  the  first  and 
second  parts  of  the  book. 

In  the  opening  scene  of  the  second  part  Faust  is  reposing  on  a 
flowery  lawn,  while  elves  float  around  his  guilty  head  and  try  to 


The  Drama . 


Ch.  XIII.] 


23 


quiet  with  dew  of  Lethe  his  bitter  qualms  of  self-reproach.  We 
soon  find  him  with  Mephisto  at  the  court  of  an  em-  sketch  of 
peror,  whom  they  assist  in  his  financial  difficulties,  the  second 
and  amuse  with  magic  arts.  Faust  conjures  up  the  part- 
vision  of  Helena  before  the  emperor’s  eyes,  but  the  sight  of  her 
exercises  a  magical  power  on  Faust  himself.  He  wishes  to  gain 
possession  of  her,  and  lays  hold  of  her ;  there  follows  a  sudden 
explosion,  and  Faust  drops  stunned  to  the  ground,  while  Helena 
is  dissolved  in  mist.  Here  the  first  act  closes. 

Mephisto  brings  the  fainting  Faust  back  to  his  old  study. 
There,  meanwhile,  Faust’s  old  servant  Wagner  has  been  at  work, 
and  has  made  a  great  discovery;  he  has  succeeded,  namely,  in 
fashioning  by  artificial  means  a  human  being,  Homunculus,  who 
turns  out  to  be  a  precocious  spirit  of  a  peculiar  kind;  he  calls 
the  Northern  devil  Mephisto,  his  cousin,  but  he  outstrips  him 
in  insight  into  things.  He  guesses  Faust’s  thoughts,  which  are 
still  dwelling  on  Helena,  and  recommends  that  he  should  be  taken 
to  classic  soil ;  in  Pharsalus,  he  says,  it  is  now  the  time  of  the 
classical  Walpurgisnight,  when  there  will  be  a  great  gathering  of 
the  ghosts  of  Greek  antiquity;  there  alone  can  Faust  be  cured 
of  his  passion.  It  is  done;  Mephisto  and  Homunculus  journey 
with  Faust  through  the  air,  and  alight  on  the  Pharsalian  fields  on 
the  banks  of  the  river  Peneios.  As  soon  as  Faust  touches  the 
ground  he  asks :  ‘  Where  is  she  ?  ’  and  he  wanders  among  the 
mythological  beings  asking  of  all :  ‘  Has  one  of  you  seen  Helena?  ’ 
The  Centaur  Chiron  takes  him  on  his  back  and  carries  him  to  the 
prophetess  Manto,  the  daughter  of  iEsculapius,  as  a  madman  for 
her  to  heal.  But  she  exclaims :  ‘  I  love  him  who  desires  the 
impossible,’  and  promises  to  admit  him  through  a  dark  way  to  the 
presence  of  Persephone,  with  whom  he  may  plead  for  Helena. 
The  scene  in  which  he  thus  pleads  was  never  written.  In  the 
third  act,  however,  after  the  marvels  of  the  classical  Walpurgis- 
night  have  vanished,  after  Homunculus  has  been  shattered  at 
the  feet  of  beauty,  against  Galatea’s  shell-throne,  and  Mephisto 
has  donned  antique  costume  and  has  transformed  himself  into 
Phorkyas,  we  see  Faust’s  wishes  fulfilled.  Helena  is  in  the  upper 
world,  in  the  Peloponnesus  at  Sparta.  She  has  forgotten  every- 


Y  2 


32  4 


Romanticism. 


[Cb.  XIII. 


thing  since  the  fall  of  Troy  and  the  return  of  the  Greeks,  and 
imagines  that  she  has  just  landed  and  has  been  sent  on  before 
by  Menelaus  to  prepare  a  sacrifice.  She  is  met  on  the  threshold 
by  Mephistopheles  in  the  guise  of  Phorkyas,  who  announces  to 
her  that  she  herself  is  the  victim  destined  to  fall  beneath  the 
sacrificial  axe.  But  Mephisto  offers  her  deliverance  ;  he  says  that 
during  Menelaus’  absence  a  tribe  of  warriors  from  the  north  have 
settled  in  the  mountains  behind  Sparta,  and  that  their  chief  would 
grant  her  protection.  Helena  agrees,  and  forthwith  Mephisto 
folds  her  in  a  magic  mist,  and  transports  her  and  her  women  to  a 
castle,  where  Faust,  surrounded  by  a  retinue  of  spirits,  receives  her 
with  all  the  state  of  a  sovereign,  quickly  wins  her  love  and  retires 
with  her  to  Arcadia.  The  boy  Euphorion,  the  firstfruits  of  their 
union,  is  a  wild  child,  who  defies  all  restraints;  he  ultimately  throws 
himself,  hoping  to  fly,  from  a  pinnacle  of  rock,  and  falls  dead  at 
his  parents’  feet.  His  vanished  spirit  calls  from  the  depths  below 
to  his  mother,  and  draws  her  after  him.  Faust  is  thus  left  alone 
with  Helena’s  garments,  which  in  a  little  time  melt  into  clouds, 
and  carry  him  away. 

In  the  fourth  act  Faust  steps  out  of  the  cloud  on  to  the  top  of  a 
high  mountain.  Mephisto  comes  to  him  and  asks  him  whether  on 
his  wide  flight  over  all  lands  he  has  seen  nothing  that  attracted 
him,  nothing  he  would  wish  to  possess.  Faust  has  framed  one  such 
wish;  he  would  like  to  recover  land  from  the  sea,  to  make  the 
barren  fruitful,  to  conquer  the  unruly  element.  He  soon  obtains 
the  means  for  fulfilling  his  wish.  A  rebellion  has  broken  out 
against  the  emperor  whom  he  had  already  succoured  once  in  his 
time  of  need ;  Faust  and  Mephisto  now  again  come  to  his  aid  with 
magic  powers,  and  overthrow  his  enemies.  As  a  token  of  gratitude 
for  this  service,  Faust  is  to  receive  the  sea-shore  in  fief;  but  the 
actual  scene  in  which  this  takes  place  is  again  wanting. 

In  the  fifth  act  the  new  creation  has  already  succeeded,  and 
Faust  rules  as  sovereign  over  the  land  won  from  the  ocean.  Where 
the  waves  formerly  raged,  meadows,  gardens,  woods  and  villages 
now  meet  the  eye.  Mephisto  and  the  spirits  have  to  help  in  the 
great  work,  but  where  they  can  they  mingle  evil  with  it  in  their 
devilish  malice.  Instead  of  commerce  and  navigation  they  carry 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Drama . 


325 


on  piracy,  and  where  their  sovereign  bids  them  enforce  obedience 
by  pacific  means  they  bum  and  slaughter.  Faust  begins  to  feel 
that  he  will  not  really  attain  to  liberty  until  he  banishes  magic 
from  his  path.  Then  Care  approaches  him ;  he  restrains  himself 
from  exercising  his  magic  power  on  her,  but  neither  does  he  need 
to  do  so,  for  Care  cannot  overcome  him,  and  in  vain  tries  to  terrify 
him  with  words;  even  though  he  is  stricken  blind  by  her  breath, 
there  is  still  daylight  in  his  soul,  and  unrestingly  as  before  he  urges 
on  his  people  in  their  work.  A  canal  is  to  be  made,  and  he 
rejoices  to  hear  the  sound  of  the  spades  at  work ;  but  they  are  not 
digging  what  he  ordered,  they  are  digging  his  grave.  Faust 
meanwhile  is  painting  in  his  mind  the  picture  of  the  happy  future, 
when  active  people  will  flourish  on  the  newly-won  soil.  He  would 
like  to  stand  on  free  land  with  a  free  people;  if  this  wish  were 
attained  he  might  indeed  say  to  the  moment :  ‘  Tarry  a  while,  thou 
art  so  fair;'  and  in  anticipation  of  this  happiness  he  dies.  But 
Mephisto  has  lost,  for  he  has  failed  to  draw  Faust  permanently  away 
from  the  right  path ;  to  his  last  moment  he  was  full  of  restless  aspira¬ 
tions,  active  for  the  common  welfare,  looking  for  contentment 
only  in  the  distant  future.  In  vain  Mephisto  summons  his  hosts 
together ;  in  the  conflict  between  angels  and  devils  the  latter  suc¬ 
cumb.  The  heavenly  messengers  bear  what  of  Faust  is  immortal 
to  heaven.  Mary,  surrounded  by  penitent  women,  meets  him  in  the 
air;  Gretchen  receives  him  and  lifts  him  to  higher  spheres. 

The  episode  of  Gretchen  and  what  leads  up  to  it  can  only  be 
partially  traced  to  the  ‘  People’s  Book '  of  Faust.  If 
we  keep  this  episode  out  of  sight,  and  thus  bring 
the  second  part  into  close  proximity  with  the  scene 
in  which  the  compact  is  made  between  Faust  and 
Mephisto,  the  similarity  with  the  popular  drama  be¬ 
comes  most  apparent ;  the  similarity,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  contrast,  for  whereas  in  the  old  play,  love  and  enjoyment 
bring  the  hero  to  ruin,  in  the  modern  drama  love  and  activity  are 
his  salvation.  But  all  the  essential  elements  of  the  composition 
were  provided  by  the  popular  drama ;  the  chief  difference  made  by 
Goethe  is  that  he  represents  Faust  as  being  at  once  inflamed  by 
the  sight  of  Helena  at  the  Imperial  Court,  for  the  whole  episode  of 


Similarity 
to  and 
differences 
from  the 
popular 
‘  Faust.’ 


326 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Helena  needed  to  be  more  compressed  ;  and  secondly  that  Helena, 
instead  of  being  put  forward  as  a  temptation  of  the  devil,  is  rather 
represented  by  Goethe  as  one  of  the  objects  which  Faust,  in  his 
restless  desires,  demands  from  his  evil  companion.  Mephisto  only 
shows  himself  as  a  tempter  in  the  fourth  act,  when,  as  in  the  popular 
drama,  he  offers  the  doctor  a  crown.  In  the  popular  drama  Faust 
refuses  it ;  with  Goethe  he  accepts  it,  but  this  incident  is  in  Goethe 
charged  with  a  fine  moral  import;  Faust  accepts  the  crown,  not  for 
the  mere  sake  of  possessing  it,  but  to  provide  himself  with  a  sphere 
of  activity,  and  in  the  end  his  kingdom  is  his  salvation. 

No  doubt  the  inner  connection  in  the  second  part  is  not  always 
Character-  c^earj  but  we  do  not  notice  this  when  we  see  all 

istics  of  the  marvels  spread  before  us.  The  effect  of  this 
the  second  second  part  of  Faust  is  that  of  a  phantasmagoria,  and 
part.  -n  as  jn  an  0pera  or  a  fairy-tale,  the  incredible  and 
magic  elements  make  us  less  strict  in  our  demands  for  careful 
connection  and  development  of  the  various  parts.  Each  act  and 
scene  is  most  dramatically  conceived,  and  it  only  needs  abridg¬ 
ment  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  real  stage.  While  the  first 
part  is  not  divided  into  acts  and  scenes,  in  the  second,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  each  act  has  its  peculiar  tone  and  its  definite  close.  We 
here  see  the  hand  of  the  stage-manager  who  knows  how  the 
multitude  must  be  satisfied,  charmed  and  held  in  suspense.  The 
poet  here  moves  in  a  motley,  fantastic  world,  in  which  figures  of 
classical  and  Christian  religion,  creatures  of  southern  and  northern 
superstition  are  all  mingled  together,  in  a  manner  which  reminds  us 
of  Raimund. 

Goethe’s  ‘Faust’  savours  all  through  of  the  popular  sphere  in 
which  the  story  first  originated.  Still,  in  the  third  act, 

JYLGLrG  £IH& 

style  in  first  when  Helena  appears,  the  poet  realises  somewhat  of 
and  second  the  grandeur  of  Greek  tragedy.  Far  from  adhering 
parts.  throughout  to  the  doggrel  metre  of  Hans  Sachs,  he 
softens  down  its  free  rough  rhythm  in  the  later  parts  of  the  poem. 
Alexandrines  are  introduced  as  well  as  blank-verse ;  Spanish 
trochees  are  occasionally  admitted,  and  Helena  speaks  in  the 
iambic  trimeters  of  the  Greek  drama,  until  contact  with  the  northern 
world  leads  her  to  use  rhyme,  as  is  described  in  a  graceful  scene 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Drama . 


327 


full  of  delicate  touches.  Not  only  the  metre  but  the  style  also 
alters,  and  the  great  changes  which  Goethe’s  dramatic  talent  under¬ 
went  are  reflected  in  this  his  life-work. 

A  prose-scene  in  the  first  part,  in  which  Faust  has  just  heard  of 
Gretchen’s  misery,  and  breaks  into  bitter  execrations  of  Mephisto, 
shows  the  same  forcible  style  as  a  Shakspearian  drama,  and  sounds 
as  though  it  might  be  from  Schiller’s  ‘  Robbers/  Passion  is  arrayed 
against  passion,  and  the  anger  of  the  one  side  and  the  scorn  of  the 
other  wax  intense,  with  no  sparing  of  coarse  and  strong  language. 
The  same  overwhelming  effect  is  produced  by  the  scene  in  the 
cathedral,  where  Gretchen  succumbs  under  the  feeling  of  her  guilt, 
amid  the  horrible  babel  which  stuns  her.  We  should  notice  the 
contrast  offered  by  this  scene  to  the  earlier  and  more  tender  one 
in  which  she  prays  to  the  Mater  Dolorosa ! 

The  beginning  of  Faust’s  opening  monologue  is  a  close  imita¬ 
tion  of  Hans  Sachs.  But  the  poet  soon  rises  above  the  naturalism 
of  ‘Gotz’  to  the  sublime  level  of  sentiment  which  we  find  in 
1  Werther/  A  few  scenes  of  the  first  part  are  marked  by  a  truly 
Dutch  attention  to  detail,  by  coarseness,  comicality,  hostility 
towards  clergy  and  church ;  in  others  we  are  reminded  of  poems 
like  ‘  Prometheus  ’  or  ‘  Ganymed/  and  are  transported  to  higher 
spheres,  above  the  level  of  earthly  joys  and  earthly  struggles. 
In  one  part  a  gentle  naturalism  holds  sway,  in  another  we  breathe 
the  idealism  of  Tphigenie/  Sometimes  naturalism  and  idealism 
are  mingled,  or  represented  in  the  same  scene  in  different  persons. 
The  two  elements  are  mingled  in  the  pathetic  character  character 
of  Gretchen,  which  is  essentially  a  creation  of  Goethe’s  of 
earlier  manner,  dating  from  the  Frankfurt  period  of  Gretchen. 
his  life.  He  has  never  created  anything  sublimer  than  this  ideal 
picture  of  innocence,  simplicity,  warmth  and  depth  of  affection ; 
her  maidenly  reserve  at  the  outset,  the  spirit  of  noble  purity  which 
breathes  around  her,  her  little  world  of  domestic  duties,  the  truly 
feminine  instinct  with  which  she  tends  her  little  sister,  the  natural 
grace  with  which  she  reveals  her  feelings,  the  naive  love  of  ornament 
natural  to  the  girl  of  the  people ;  then  the  first  shadows  which  fall 
on  this  transparent  soul,  the  misgivings  roused  by  Faust’s  bold 
address,  the  presentiment  of  danger  and  involuntary  shudder  felt 


328 


Romanticism . 


[Ch.  XIII. 


at  Mephisto’s  presence,  her  pious  anxiety  about  the  spiritual  wel¬ 
fare  of  her  lover,  her  devotion  and  utter  self-surrender  to  him,  her 
inability  to  refuse  him  anything,  and  then  all  the  fell  consequences 
of  her  weakness,  madness,  prison  and  death — a  fearful  transition 
this  from  the  idyllic  to  the  tragical.  Yet  the  charm  of  innocence 
clings  to  Gretchen  in  the  midst  of  her  guilt ;  and  herein  the  poet 
shows  his  wonderful  skill,  for  he  does  not  try  to  veil  or  excuse  her 
offence,  and  yet  he  fills  us  with  that  love  of  the  heroine  which  purity 
alone  can  inspire.  The  halo  of  human  forgiveness  rests  on  the 
head  of  this  ‘  good  soul,’  as  she  is  called  in  the  second  part,  ‘  who 
only  once  erred,  and  hardly  knew  that  she  was  erring.’  In  Shak- 
speare’s  Ophelia  we  have  the  germ  of  Gretchen’s  character,  only 
Gretchen  rises  high  above  Ophelia.  Most  of  the  Gretchen  scenes 
are  somewhat  naturalistic  in  treatment,  not  so  forcible  as  the  scene 
in  the  cathedral,  but  neither  so  tender  and  affecting  as  her  mono¬ 
logues.  The  mad-scene  in  the  prison  is  based  upon  an  extravagant 
youthful  sketch,  which  was  toned  down  by  the  poet’s  maturer  art 
in  1798. 

Gretchen’s  female  companions,  her  neighbour  Frau  Marthe  and 

Typical  her  contemporary  Lieschen  are  creations  of  Goethe’s 
realism  in  naturalistic  period.  So  too  is  the  famulus  Wagner, 

‘Faust.  (_he  Philistine  counterpart  of  Faust,  and  so  far  akin  to 
the  old  Hanswurst.  But  the  first  part  was  completed  as  far  as 
possible  in  the  style  of  Goethe’s  cultured  realism,  and  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  typical  method  of  his  ripest  art,  as  we  find  it  in 
‘  Hermann  and  Dorothea.’  The  ‘  Prelude  at  the  Theatre  ’  con¬ 
trasts  in  a  typical  manner  the  poet’s  vocation  and  the  actor’s.  The 
songs  of  the  three  archangels  which  open  the  ‘  Prologue  in  Heaven  ’ 
are  an  attempt  to  picture  to  us  the  world  under  its  eternal  aspects. 
The  suicide-scene  and  the  walk  on  Easter  Sunday  afford  us  typical 
pictures  of  human  life  as  a  whole.  The  fit  of  industry  which 
follows,  and  the  disturbances  of  the  poodle  are  almost  symbolically 
treated,  and  Mephisto’s  character  is  further  developed  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  first  outlines  of  it  given  in  the  £  Prologue  in  Heaven.' 
The  poet  now  aims  at  closer  connection,  more  exact  determination 
of  time,  and  greater  conciseness.  Thus  the  scene  in  which 
Gretchen’s  brother  appears  and  falls  by  Faust’s  hand  is  made  to 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Drama. 


32  9 


part. 


link  directly  with  the  Walpurgis-night.  The  Walpurgis-night  was 
not  completed,  and  the  continuations  of  it  afterwards  suggested  by 
literary  satire  somewhat  lowered  this  scene  in  the  public  estimation. 

In  the  second  part  of ‘Faust’  typical  realism  predominates  exclu¬ 
sively,  only  that  the  realism  disappears  more  and  more, 
and  the  typical  element  alone  remains  along  with  a  Pred0Tnin- 
wealth  of  allegory  and  personification.  The  emperor’s  typical 
court  contains  nothing  but  typical  characters.  Three  treatment 
strong  men  represent  the  army  of  spirits  in  the  and  allegory 
fourth  act.  Three  penitent  sinners  from  the  New 
Testament  stand  by  Gretchen’s  side,  in  order  to 
give  a  typical  aspect  to  an  otherwise  completely  individualised 
picture  of  sinning  innocence.  The  figures  drawn  either  from 
ancient  mythology,  or,  as  in  the  Walpurgis  scene,  from  the  store¬ 
house  of  Goethe’s  own  imagination,  are  made  extraordinarily 
characteristic,  and  a  free,  fine  spirit  of  romanticism  breathes  through 
the  scenes  in  the  rocky  caves  of  the  iEgean  sea,  where  the  sirens 
repose  on  the  cliffs  in  the  moonshine,  while  Galatea  appears  in 
her  shell-chariot,  inflames  the  passion  of  Homunculus  and  draws 
him  on  to  his  death.  There  is,  however,  a  good  deal  of  spurious 
symbolism  in  the  second  part,  which  Goethe  should  not  have 
allowed  himself ;  I  refer  to  utterances  which  would  be  appropriate 
if  they  came  from  Goethe’s  own  lips,  but  which  are  little  consonant 
with  the  characters  in  whose  mouths  he  puts  them,  and  in  which 
he  either  remains  obscure  or  offends  if  his  meaning  is  under¬ 
stood.  The  latter  is  the  case  with  the  character  of  Euphorion,  who 
is  not  only  Faust  and  Helena’s  son,  but  is  also  meant  as  an  imper¬ 
sonation  of  Lord  Byron.  Nevertheless,  when  placed  on  the  stage, 
Euphorion’s  graceful  youE  charms  us,  and  his  death  affects  us 
deeply.  The  master’s  poetical  power  triumphs  over  all  symbolism 
and  mystification. 

There  is  a  certain  parallelism  between  the  first  and  second  parts. 
Notes  struck  in  the  one  are  repeated  higher  up  the  parallelism 
scale,  as  it  were,  in  the  other,  as  we  should  expect  between  the 
from  a  writer  who  sets  himself  to  delineate  types  first  and 
rather  than  particular  people.  Thus  in  the  first  part  second  parts* 
we  have  a  German  Walpurgis-night,  in  the  second  a  classical  one; 


33° 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


Wagner,  Faust’s  former  servant,  appears .  afterwards  as  an  inde¬ 
pendent  scholar;  an  inquisitive  student  of  the  first  part  becomes  an 
arrogant  bachelor  of  arts  in  the  second ;  Gretchen’s  prayer  of 
despair  is  changed  into  a  prayer  of  joy.  This  parallelism  is  most 
observable  in  the  case  of  Helena,  who  occupies  the  same  leading 
position  in  the  second  part  which  Gretchen  does  in  the  first.  It  is 
not  quite  clearly  brought  out  in  the  drama,  but  must  have  been  part 
of  the  poet’s  original  plan,  that  the  two  sinning  women  should  be 
Faust’s  good  geniuses,  who  purify  and  save  him  from  the  power  of 
the  evil  one.  (^nly  in  the  second  part  we  are  left  to  divine  for 
ourselves  that  the  passion  with  which  Helena,  like  Gretchen,  in¬ 
spires  him  at  first  sight,  gives  way  ultimately,  like  his  passion  for 
Gretchen,  to  nobler  feelings.  In  the  drama  as  it  stands  there  is 
also  considerable  abruptness  in  the  sudden  transition  from  Faust 
as  Helena’s  lover  to  Faust  as  the  aspiring  sovereign  of  lands 
wrested  from  the  sea. 

The  beginning  of  the  third  act  is  a  supreme  example  of 
Third  Act  Goethe’s  ‘  cultured  realism.’  We  detect  both  in  the 
of  conception  and  development  of  the  situation  the 
Second  Part.  same  fulness  and  force  of  imagination  which  cha¬ 
racterized  his  youthful  poems  and  the  ballads  written  subse¬ 
quently.  It  is  a  grand  yet  terrible  thought  that  Helena  should 
return  to  her  home  doomed  to  be  sacrificed  on  the  domestic  altar. 
The  chorus  of  Trojan  women  has  been  marvellously  treated  by 
Goethe.  He  lets  them  retain  the  traditional  changeableness  of 
the  chorus,  but  represents  their  rapid  changes  of  mood  as  the 
result  of  the  lower  feminine  nature.  ‘  Precipitate  and  foolish,  true  pic¬ 
ture  of  woman’s  nature!’  the  leader  of  the  chorus  exclaims  to  them. 

Helena  stands  in  two-fold  contrast,  first  to  the  chorus  and  then 
The  Chorus,  to  Phorkyas.  Helena  is  the  mistress,  dignified  in  her 
Phorkyas  bearing,  self-possessed  and  calm  even  in  the  presence 
and  Helena  cf  ^ath  •  the  chorus,  on  the  other  hand,  is  composed 
of  serving  women,  whose  demeanour  is  the  exact  opposite  to 
Helena’s  in  everything.  But  though  Helena  can  suffer  death  with 
calm  dignity,  the  appearance  of  Phorkyas  fills  her  with  horror,  for 
he  represents  the  extreme  of  ugliness,  as  she  of  beauty.  The  two,  in 
their  opposition,  are  typical  of  the  great  contrast  between  the  beautiful 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Drama. 


331 


and  the  hideous  which  pervades  creation.  Beauty  is  everything 
with  Helena ;  her  beauty  is  her  character  and  her  fate.  Phorkyas 
Mephisto,  on  the  contrary,  is  physically  and  morally  hideous,  and 
delights  in  all  malice  and  wickedness. 


A  third  contrast  may  be  noticed,  namely  that  between  Helena  and 
Gretchen.  The  German  burgher-maiden  is  all  unconscious ;  the 
Greek  Goddess  is  throughout  self-conscious  ;  she  knows  her  heart, 
and  feels  what  is  coming,  and  she  acts  not  from  impulse  but  with 
full  reflection.  We  cannot  believe  that  Goethe  intended  in  Helena 
to  show  us  beauty  only  from  its  evil  side  ;  he  must  have  meant  also 
to  show  us  beauty  as  a  good^  Helena  proving  a  blessing  to  Faust. 
We  may  venture  to  surmise  that  the  rousing  of  his  creative  activity 
was  the  legacy  which  Helena  bequeathed  to  her  northern  friend. 

Among  the  manifold  figures  which  Goethe  has  created  we  notice 
four  classes  of  male  characters  which  often  recur, 
retaining  the  same  general  features :  the  active,  the 
negative,  the  emotional,  and  those  who  begin  with 
sentiment  and  end  with  action.  The  emotional 
characters  follow  the  promptings  of  their  hearts,  and 
heed  not  the  warning  voice  of  reflection  or  conscience. 

They  break  down  and  ruin  themselves  and  others 
from  stress  of  their  own  feelings,  or  because  they  yield 
to  evil  counsel.  Such  characters  are  Weislingen,  Clavigo,  Wer- 
ther,  Crugantino,  Fernando,  Tasso,  Eduard;  they  are  all  selfish 
and  vacillating,  either  gloomy  like  Orestes,  or  careless  like  Egmont, 
or  despondent  in  grief  like  Epimetheus. 

The  working  and  struggling  characters,  who  act  from  reflection 
and  not  from  blind  impulse,  are  Gotz,  Prometheus,  The  active 
Pylades,  William  of  Orange,  Antonio,  Lothario,  Her-  type, 
mann,  Achilles,  and  the  captain  in  the  £  Wahlverwandschaften.’ 
These  characters  are  never  represented  as  selfish  by  Goethe  ;  they 
work  for  the  welfare  of  friends,  country,  or  humanity,  and  are  at 
once  generous  and  self-denying. 

The  negative  characters  are  swindlers  like  Satyros,  Pater  Brey, 
the  Great  Cophta,  Reinecke  Fuchs,  intriguants  like  The  negative 
the  duke’s  secretary  in  the  ‘  Natural  Daughter/  type, 
besoms  of  destruction  like  the  demons  of  war,  cunning  and 


Four 

classes 

among 

Goethe’s 

male 

characters. 

The 

emotional 

type. 


332 


Romanticism. 


[Ch.  XIII. 


oppression  in  ‘  Epimenides,’  with  whom  we  may  compare  tools 
of  despotism  like  Alba,  or  instruments  of  revolution  like  the 
peasant-leaders  in  ‘  Gotz ;  ’  shortsighted  men  of  the  wrorld  like  Carlos, 
Clavigo’s  friend,  who  balances  worldly  gain  against  duty  and 
honour;  supercilious  scoffers  like  Jarno  in  ‘Wilhelm  Meister,’  who 
by  very  repulsion  rouse  others  to  goodness.  Mephisto  has  some¬ 
thing  in  common  with  each  of  these  types,  and  is  a  conjuror  to 
boot.  He  delights  in  harming,  and  glories  in  sin  and  ruin.  He 
excites  all  the  lower  human  impulses,  and  makes  Faust  a  seducer 
and  a  murderer.  He  is  a  scoffer,  a  coarse  jester,  and  revels  in  all 
that  is  senseless,  filthy,  ugly,  or  barbarous.  Goethe  has  most 
felicitously  comprehended  in  one  formula  the  manifold  characters 
in  which  Mephisto  appears,  when  he  makes  him  say  that  he  is : 
‘  Part  of  that  power  that  would  still  do  evil,  but  still  does  good/ 
This  nowhere  proves  itself  truer  than  in  the  temptation  of  the 
fourth  act,  which  turns  out  to  be  for  Faust’s  salvation. .  The  love 
for  Gretchen,  also,  which  Mephisto  does  his  best  to  strengthen, 
leads  neither  in  the  beginning  nor  in  the  end  to  the  result  which 
he  wished  for ;  Faust  does  not  become  worse  through  it,  but 
better. 

Wilhelm  Meister  and  Faust  are  the  two  characters,  who,  from 
Wilhelm  emotional,  speculative,  critical,  or  aesthetic  life, 

Meister  and  pass  under  the  inciting  influence  of  denying  spirits 
Faust.  and  idea}  examples,  to  the  life  of  useful  labour.  Both 
these  figures  accompanied  the  poet  during  a  good  period  of  his 
life,  and  both  are  comparatively  true  pictures  of  himself.  He  was 
not  able  to  give  the  last  touch  of  art  to  either  of  them,  but  Faust 
came  nearer  to  perfection  than  Wilhelm  Meister.  The  former  re- 
Parallel  presents  the  scientific,  the  latter  the  aesthetic  tendency 
between  of  Goethe’s  youth.  Like  Faust,  Goethe  had  in  vain 
Faust  and  sought  satisfaction  in  all  departments  of  knowledge. 
Goethe.  Faust  he  hoped  for  a  short  time  to  find  a  clue  to 

the  mysterious  power  which  binds  nature  into  one  whole,  in  sciences 
which  were  then  still  of  evil  fame,  in  the  writings  of  old  chemists 
and  alchemists.  Like  Faust  he  harboured  thoughts  of  suicide. 
Like  Faust  he  was  not  devoid  of  religious  feeling,  especially  when 
engaged  in  contemplating  nature  as  a  whole.  Like  Faust  he  had 


Ch.  XIII.] 


The  Dramcu 


333 


Mephistophelian  friends,  Merck  and  Herder  for  instance,  who 
made  him  conscious  of  his  littleness,  and  thereby  gave  a  stimulus  to 
his  efforts.  Like  Faust  he  fell  in  love  with  a  simple  burgher- 
maiden,  and  as  Gretchen  was  made  miserable  by  Faust,  so 
Friederike  Brion  was  made  miserable  by  Goethe,  though  not  at 
all  to  the  same  extent.  Like  Faust  he  remained  always  conscious 
of  the  right  path,  and  though  he  often  went  astray,  yet  he  always 
returned  to  it.  Like  Faust  he  came  to  a  court,  had  a  voice  in 
affairs  of  state,  and  was  chastened  in  hard  service  for  the  common 
good.  Like  Faust  he  imbibed  in  the  south,  on  classical  soil,  fresh 
strength  and  purer  aspirations,  along  with  a  clearer  insight  into 
his  own  future.  Like  Faust  he  drew  nigh  to  the  Greek  gods,  and 
in  communion  with  the  immortal  creations  of  Hellenic  art  and 
religion  found  the  highest  truths  dawn  upon  him,  and  the  various 
tendencies  of  his  nature  gather  themselves  up  into  one.  Like 
Faust  he  returned  to  his  northern  fatherland,  to  a  life  of  activity 
among  his  own  people.  His  contact  with  the  ancient  world  bore 
fruit  in  Germany,  though  in  another  sense  than  with  Faust ;  he  no 
longer  found  his  vocation  in  political  and  social  activity,  but  in 
science  and  poetry  alone.  Then,  when  a  friend  of  equal  intel¬ 
lectual  rank  with  himself  inspired  him  with  new  joy  in  creation, 
‘Faust’  was  among  the  first  tasks  that  engrossed  him.  The 
classical  Walpurgis-night,  Helena,  and  the  final  studies  which 
underlay  the  last  developments  of  the  poem,  date  from  the  period 
in  which  he  practised  his  hand  in  Greek  rhythms  and  revived  the 
Greek  gods  in  poetry,  the  period  of  the  Roman  elegies  and  the 
‘  Achilleis.’ 

Faust  was  not  meant  to  resemble  Goethe  in  all  points,  but  he 
represents  Goethe’s  views  in  all  great  questions — in  the  idea  that 
man  is  meant  to  struggle,  in  the  conviction  of  the  salvation  to  be 
found  in  hard  service,  in  the  maxim  which  Faust  utters  when  dying 
as  the  last  conclusion  of  wisdom  :  ‘  He  alone  deserves  liberty,  like 
life,  who  daily  must  conquer  it.’  Herein  he  was  also  in  harmony 
with  Schiller,  whose  Tell  declares:  ‘I  only  really  enjoy  my  life, 
when  I  win  it  every  day  afresh.’  Both  in  ‘  Wilhelm  Meister  ’  and 
in  ‘  Faust,’  Goethe  prizes  activity  for  the  common  good  more 
highly  than  aesthetic  and  literary  interests.  Neither  the  poet,  nor 


33  4 


Romanticism . 


[Ch.  XIII. 


the  actor,  nor  the  speculative  scholar,  he  seems  to  think,  can  attain 
in  their  own  spheres  to  such  lofty  discernment  and  to  such  peace 
of  conviction  as  the  man  of  action.  Thus  Goethe  recommended 
in  poetry  what  he  himself  neglected  to  do  in  real  life. 

Goethe’s  ‘  Faust  '  contained  a  deep  moral  lesson  for  the  Ger- 
‘  Faust’ and  man  nati°n  in  particular.  It  expressed  a  longing  for 
the  German  action  in  an  age  which  was  poor  in  deeds.  Many 
nation.  writers. of  the  time  echo  this  spirit;  for  example, 
we  find  the  Baron  von  Stein  continually  deploring  the  predo¬ 
minance  in  Germany  of  metaphysics  and  speculative  science.  The 
Germans,  he  wrote,  owing  to  their  exclusion  from  all  share  in 
public  affairs,  had  lost  all  power  of  initiative  and  had  taken  to 
idle  broodings.  And  in  fact  since  the  Reformation,  the  German 
character  had  become  more  and  more  introspective,  and  modern 
German  poetry  has  but  seldom  glorified  the  strong,  indomitable 
will  which  belongs  to  men  of  action.  But  under  the  guidance  of 
this  same  Baron  von  Stein  a  change  set  in.  What  Goethe 
demanded  began  to  be  fulfilled  even  in  his  life-time,  and  our 
times  have  seen  this  fulfilment  carried  further,  perhaps  even  too 
far.  The  brief  harvest  of  poetic  vigour,  which  was  sown  by  the 
deeds  of  Frederick  the  Great,  was  but  an  earnest  of  what  was 
to  come,  and  the  delight  in  its  poets  gave  to  a  divided  nation 
the  single  common  possession  in  which  it  felt  pride  and  strength. 
The  poets  themselves  in  their  works  directly  reminded  their 
countrymen  of  past  days  of  political  greatness.  The  national 
consciousness  was  quickened,  and  what  seemed  a  short  time  before 
to  be  a  mere  dream  became  a  welcome  reality.  In  the  nineteenth 
century  as  in  the  thirteenth  a  period  of  literary  glory  was  followed 
by  a  period  of  national  expansion  and  economic  prosperity.  Now, 
as  then,  poetry  has  suffered  thereby.  If  in  1800  the  nation  was 
over-intellectual,  it  now  begins  to  be  over-material,  and  threatens 
to  fall  under  the  sway  of  those  tendencies  which  beset  the  German 
world  of  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries,  to  the  prejudice 
both  of  its  culture  and  character. 

A  survey  of  all  the  successive  epochs  of  German  literary  history 
will  alone  serve  to  reveal  to  us  the  latent  capacities  of  the  nation, 
in  the  harmonious  development  of  all  of  which  lies  its  real 


Ch.  xiii.]  The  Drama.  335 

% 

perfection.  This  perfection  may  be  attained  if  the  fatal  one¬ 
sidedness,  which  so  easily  lays  hold  of  the  German  character,  can 
be  overcome ;  or,  if  men  will  restrain  their  natural  inclinations  by 
conscious  labour,  and  so  carry  ovei  into  the  present  and  future 
the  spirit  of  the  age  which  is  expiring.  Many  Germans  of  to-day 
need  no  spurring  in  order  to  take  to  the  life  of  generally  useful 
activity,  which  Faust  only  embraces  after  often  going  astray;  every¬ 
thing  now  seems  in  favour  of  these  practical  men.  Meanwhile 
those  who  live  after  Goethe’s  example,  and  look  on  poetry  as  a 
sacred  and  national  task,  have  to  struggle  against  wind  and 
weather  and  to  work  doubly  hard.  Let  them  too  find  encourage¬ 
ment  in  the  words  which  the  angels  sing  as  they  bear  aloft  the 
soul  of  Faust : — 


‘  Wer  immer  strebend  sich  bemiiht. 
Den  konnen  wir  erlosen.’ 


APPENDIX. 


Chronological  Table. 


Roman  Period. 

II 6  (circa).  Tacitus,  Annals  ii.  88,  mentions  Arminius,  killed  A.D.  21 : 
‘  Septem  et  triginta  annos  vitae,  duodecim  potentiae  explevit,  caniturque 
adhuc  barbaras  apud  gentes.’ 


Gothic  and  Merovingian  Period. 

250  (circa).  Ostrogotha,  King  of  the  Goths  ;  celebrated  in  the  heroic  poetry. 
341.  Ulfilas  consecrated  Bishop  of  the  Visigoths. 

374  (circa).  Ermanarich  kills  himself. 

381.  Death  of  Ulfilas. 

437.  The  Burgundians  defeated  by  the  Huns,  King  Gundicarius  killed. 

453.  Death  of  Attila. 

476.  Odoacer  dethrones  the  last  Western  emperor. 

488.  Theodoric  the  Great  leads  the  Ostrogoths  into  Italy. 

530  (circa).  The  sons  of  Clovis  destroy  the  Thuringian  empire. 

568.  Alboin  the  Longobard  in  Italy. 

600  (circa).  Gradual  separation  of  High  German  from  Low  German. 


Old  High-German  Period. 

772  (after).  Christian  Missions  begin  in  Saxony.  Saxon  baptismal  vow 
(Denkm.  No.  51). 

789.  Decrees  of  Charlemagne  on  preaching  and  Christian  teaching,  which 
called  forth  German  translations  of  the  Lord’s  Prayer  and  the  Creed,  and 
German  confessions  and  penances. 

804.  Rabanus  Maurus  at  the  head  of  the  school  at  Fulda  (822,  Abbot^ 
Fulda;  847,  Archbishop  of  Mainz).  In  his  time  Tatian’s  Life  of  Christ 
was  translated  into  German  at  Fulda. 

830  (circa).  The  Pleljand. 


VOL.  II. 


z 


338 


Chronological  Table. 


842.  The  Oath  of  Strassburg  (p.  56). 

870  {circa).  Otfried’s  Gospels. 

887.  Siegfried,  the  leader  of  the  Northmen,  who  appears  in  the  Middle  High- 
German  ‘Gudrun’  as  King  of  the  Moors,  falls  in  an  attack  on  the 
Frisians. 

930  {circa').  ‘  Waltharius  manu  fortis.’ 

962  {after).  Latin  German  song  on  the  reconciliation  of  Otto  the  Great  with 
his  brother  Henry  (Denkm.  No.  18). 

96a  {circa).  The  Latin  Comedies  of  the  nun  Roswitha. 

968.  Roswitha’s  Latin  poem  on  the  life  of  Otto  the  Great. 

1022.  Notker  the  German,  monk  of  St  Gall,  dies. 


Middle  Kigli-G  erman  Period. 

1057-1065.  Bishop  Gunther  of  Bamberg,  who  ordered  Ezzo’s  song  on  the 
Life  of  Christ. 

1064.  Gunther  and  others  lead  a  great  pilgrimage  to  Palestine. 

1065  {circa).  Williram’s  paraphrase  of  the  Song  of  Solomon.  About  this 
time,  or  rather  later,  the  ‘  Wiener  Genesis,’  probably  of  Carinthian 
origin. 

1075.  Death  of  Archbishop  Anno  of  Cologne,  celebrated  afterwards  in  the 
*  Annolied.’ 

1100  {before).  A  poem  on  Gudrun,  known  or  composed  in  Bavaria. 

1120  {circa).  The  ‘  Alexanderlied  ’  by  priest  Lambrecht. 

1127.  Death  of  the  nun  (inclusa)  Ava. 

11 30  {circa).  The  Rolandslied  by  priest  Konrad,  dedicated  to  Henry  the 
Proud. 

1135.  Peace  in  Germany  under  Lothair  the  Saxon:  1137,  victory  over  the 
Normans  in  South  Italy;  this  period  nearly  corresponds  with  ‘Konig 
Rother,’  and  the  conception  of  the  ‘  Kaiserchronik.’ 

1139.  Count  Louis  of  Arnstein  turns  his  castle  into  a  monastery,  and  enters  it 
himself,  whilst  his  wife,  Countess  Guda,  lives  in  a  cloister  in  the  neigh¬ 
bourhood.  The  Arnstein  ‘  Song  of  Mary’  (Denkm.  No.  38).  (?) 

1143  and  1146  {between).  The  Universal  History,  by  Otto  von  Freising. 

1154  {after).  German  strophe  on  the  Queen  of  England,  Eleanor  of  Poitou 
(Minnesangs  Frlihling,  3.  7). 

1155  and  1157  {between).  The  Latin  drama  of  Antichrist.  (?) 

1157.  Life  of  Frederick  Barbarossa,  by  Otto  von  Freising. 

1 160  {circa).  The  Satirist  Heinrich  von  Molk. 

1162.  The  destruction  of  Milan,  related  by  the  Arch-poet. 

1162.  Charlemagne  canonized. 

1170  (  circa).  ‘Reinhart  Fuchs,’  by  Heinrich  dem  Glichezare  ;  ‘Count  Rudolf 
‘  Floris  ;’  ‘  Tristrant,’  by  Eilhard  von  Oberge.  Kiirenberg’s  stanza.  (?) 

1172.  Poems  on  the  Virgin,  by  priest  Wernher  (see  IV.  2,  in  Bibliography). 

1172  {after).  ‘Herzog  Ernst.’ 


Middle  High- German  Period. 


339 


11 73  (after).  The  ‘  Anegenge’  (see  IV.  2,  in  Bibliography). 

1175.  Friedrich  von  Hausen,  the  Minnesinger,  in  Italy.  An  old  gleeman 
(Anonymous  Spervogel)  sings  (when  ?)  the  death  of  Hausen’s  father,  still 
alive  in  1173. 

1176-1181.  Burggraf  Friedrich  von  Regensburg,  Minnesinger. 

1180-1190  {circa).  Dietniar  von  Aist,  Minnesinger. 

1  j  84.  Festival  of  Mainz.  The  ZEneid  of  Heinrich  von  Veldeke  first  known.  (?) 
1187  {circa).  Walther  von  der  Vogelweide  begins  to  compose. 

118 'j  {after).  ‘Orendel.’ 

1189.  ‘  Rupertus  ioculator  regis’  mentioned  in  documents. 

1190  {circa).  The  oldest  Nibelungen  songs. 

1190  {May  6).  Death  of  Friedrich  von  Hausen. 

1192.  The  ‘Ereck’  of  Hartmann  von  Aue.  (?) 

1194.  The  elder  Reinmar  sings  the  death  of  Leopold  V  of  Babenberg. 
Hartmann’s  *  Gregorius.’  (?) 

1195.  Hartmann’s  first  Biichlein.  (?) 

1197.  Hartmann  joins  the  Crusade. 

1198.  Haitmann’s  ‘  Armer  Heinrich.’  (?)  Walther  leaves  Vienna. 

1199.  Hartmann’s  second  Biichlein.  (?) 

1202.  Hartmann’s  ‘  Iwein.’  (?) 

1203  {Nov.  12).  Walther  von  der  Vogelweide  in  Zeisselmauer. 

1205  {circa).  Wolfram’s  ‘  Parzival  ’  begun. 

1210.  Albrecht  von  Halberstadt  begins  to  translate  Ovid’s  Metamorphoses. 
Conclusion  of  the  ‘  Nibelungenlied,’  (?)  ‘Gudrun,’  (?)  Wolfram’s  ‘Titurel,’ 
Gottfried’s  ‘Tristan,’  (?)  the  ‘  Wigalois’  of  Wirent  von  Grafenberg.  (?) 
1215  {circa).  Neidhart  von  Reuenthal  appears. 

1215  and  1216.  Thomasin  composes  ‘Der  Welsche  Gast.’ 

1216  {before).  Wolfram’s  ‘Willehalm’  begun. 

1216  {end  of).  Hermann  the  Landgrave  of  Thuringia  dies. 

1220  {circa).  Wolfram  von  Eschenbach  dies.  ‘  Sachsenspiegel.’ (?) 

1225  {circa).  Rudolf  of  Ems  probably  began  his  poems. 

1225  {circa).  ‘Ortnit.’ 

1227.  Walther  von  der  Vogelweide  encourages  the  Crusade. 

1229  {March  18).  Frederick  II  crowns  himself  King  of  Jerusalem.  Freidank 
in  Palestine. 

1230  {circa).  Burkard  von  Hohenfels  and  Gottfried  von  Neifen  at  Prince 
Henry’s  Court  in  Swabia. 

1250.  The  Franciscan  monk,  Berthold  of  Regensburg,  begins  to  preach. 

1250  and  1254  {between).  The  ‘  Weltchronik’  of  Rudolf  of  Ems. 

1260.  Albertus  Magnus,  Bishop  of  Regensburg. 

1260  and  1270  {between).  Albrecht’s  ‘Titurel.’ 

1266-1308.  Reign  of  Otto  IV  of  Brandenburg,  the  Minnesinger. 

1268  {Oct.  29).  Conradine  beheaded.  Love  songs  composed  by  him  are 
extant. 

1270-1290.  Reign  of  Heinrich  of  Breslau,  the  Minnesinger. 

1272  {Dec.  13).  Death  of  Berthold  of  Regensburg. 

1275-  The  ‘  Schwabenspiegel.’ 


Z  2 


34°  Chronological  Table. 

1276.  Rudolf  of  Hapsburg  besieges  Vienna.  Steimar  and  other  Minnesingers 
in  his  army.  Bruno  von  Schonebeck  (near  Magdeburg)  translates  the 
Song  of  Solomon. 

1277-  {circa).  Death  of  Mathilde  of  Magdeburg. 

1278.  Frauenlob  in  the  army  of  Rudolf  of  Hapsburg. 

1280.  Death  of  Albertus  Magnus,  at  Cologne. 

1286.  Frauenlob  at  Prague,  when  Wenzel  of  Bohemia,  the  Minnesinger, 
was  knighted. 

1287.  {Aug.  31).  Death  of  Conrad  of  Wurzburg. 

1290.  {before).  ‘Lohengrin.’ 

1293.  Legend  of  St.  Martina,  by  Hugo  von  Langenstein. 

1300.  Hugo  von  Trimberg’s  ‘Renner’  (added  to,  till  1318). 

1302  to  1325.  Reign  of  Wizlaw,  Duke  of  Riigen,  Minnesinger. 

1314.  Johannes  von  Wurzburg  (near  Esslingen),  ‘Wilhelm  von  Oesterreich.’ 
1318.  {Nov.  29)  Death  of  Frauenlob  at  Mayence. 

1322.  Play  of  the  wise  and  foolish  virgins  at  Eisenach.  (?) 

1327.  Death  of  Master  Eckhart,  the  Mystic,  at  Cologne. 

1 330  {circa).  Boner’s  ‘Edelstein.’ 

1336.  Claus  Wisse  and  Philipp  Colin  of  Strassburg,  by  commission  of  Ulrich 
von  Rappolstein,  continue  Wolfram’s  ‘  Parzival.’ 

1340  {circa).  ‘  Die  Jagd’  of  Hadamar  von  Laber. 

Early  New  High-German,  or  the  Transition  Period. 

1348.  University  of  Prague.  The  Black  Death.  Flagellants.  Persecution  of 
the  Jews. 

1352.  Rulmann  Merswin’s  ‘  Buch  von  den  neun  Felsen.’ 

1360  {circa).  Short  songs  of  three  strophes  became  fashionable,  according  to 
the  Limburg  Chronicle. 

1365.  University  of  Vienna. 

1370  {circa).  ‘There  lived  on  the  Main  a  barefooted  friar  who  became  a  Leper, 
and  who  in  word  and  melody  made  the  best  songs  and  rhymes,  so  that 
nobody  at  that  time  could  compare  with  him,  and  everybody  gladly 
sang  his  poems’  (Limburg  Chronicle). 

1383.  Heinrich  of  Langenstein  in  Vienna. 

1386.  University  of  Heidelberg. 

1388.  University  of  Cologne. 

1392.  University  of  Erfurt. 

1399.  Ackermann  aus  Bohmen. 

1409-  University  of  Leipzic. 

1414-1418.  Council  of  Constance.  ‘  Des  Teufel’s  Netz.’ 

1419.  University  of  Rostock. 

1433.  Eberhard  Windeck’s  History  of  the  Emperor  Sigismund. 

1443.  iEneas  Sylvius,  Secretary  to  the  Imperial  Chancery  (-1455). 

1447.  Rosenbliit’s  panegyric  on  the  city  of  Nuremberg. 

1450.  Printing  discovered  by  John  Gutenberg. 

1453.  Hermann  von  Sach-enheim’s  ‘Die  Mohrin.’ 


Early  New  High-German  Period. 


34i 


1454.  Peuerbach  begins  humanistic  lectures  in  Vienna. 

1456.  University  of  Greifswald. 

1457.  University  of  Freiburg. 

1460.  University  of  Basle. 

1461.  Regiomontanus  gives  humanistic  lectures  in  Vienna. 

1472.  Albrecht  von  Eyb,  ‘Obeinem  Manne  sei  zu  nehmen  ein  ehlichs  Weib 
oder  nicht.’  University  of  Ingolstadt  (later  Landshut,  1802;  Munich, 
1826). 

1474.  Niklas  von  Wyle  writes  in  praise  of  women. 

1477.  ‘  Parzival  ’  and  ‘  Titurel 5  printed.  University  of  Tubingen. 

1480  {circa).  Ulrich  Fiitrer’s  ‘Buch  der  Abenteuer.’ 

1480.  Theodorich  Schemberg’s  Play  ‘Frau  Jutte.’ 

1483.  ‘  Eulenspiegel.’ 

1485-  Konrad  Celtis  began  his  active  work. 

1494.  Sebastian  Brand’s  ‘  Narrenschiff.’ 

1497.  Reuchlin’s  £  Henno,’  played.  The  ‘Narrenschiff’  in  Latin,  by  Jacob 
Locher. 

1498.  ‘  Reinke  de  vos.’ 

1501.  Celtis  publishes  Roswitha’s  works. 

1502.  Univeisity  of  Wittenberg.  Celtis’ ‘  Amores.’ 

1503.  Adam  Wernher,  of  Themar,  translates  Roswitha’s  ‘Abraham,’  and 
dedicates  it  to  the  Count  Palatine  Philipp  (Heidelberg). 

1505.  Augsburg  newspaper  on  Brazil.  Wimpfeling’s  German  History. 

1506.  University  of  Frankfurt  on  the  Oder. 

1507.  First  evidence  of  the  historical  Faust. 

1508.  Luther  called  to  Wittenberg. 

1509.  Erasmus,  ‘  Encomium  Moriae.’ 

1510  Reuchlin's  dispute  with  the  theologians  of  Cologne. 

1511.  Albrecht  von  Eyb’s  ‘Spiegel  der  Sitten  ’  printed. 

1512.  Murner,  ‘  Narrenbeschworung.’ 

1515.  ‘  Epistolae  obscurorum  virorum.’ 

1517.  Luther’s  Theses  against  Indulgences.  ‘  Epistolae  obscurorum  virorum,’ 
second  part.  ‘Theuerdank.’  Hans  Sachs’  first  Carnival  play. 

1519.  ‘  Volksbiichlein  ’  of  the  Emperor  Frederick. 

1520.  Ulrich  von  Hutten.  ‘  Dialogi ;  ’  ‘  Clag  und  Vormanung ;  ’  Pirckheimer, 
‘  Eccius  dedolatus.’ 

1521.  Luther,  ‘  Passional  Christi  und  Antichristi.’  Hutten,  ‘  Ich  habs  gewagt 
mit  Sinnen.’  ‘  Gesprachbiichlin.’  ‘  Dialogi  Huttenici  novi.’  Eberlin  von 
Giinzburg,  ‘Fiinfzehn  Bundsgenossen.’ 

1522  {Sept.').  Luther’s  New  Testament  in  German.  Niklaus  Manuel,  ‘Tccl- 
tenfresser.’  ‘  Unterschied  zwischen  Papst  und  Jesus  Christus.’  Murner, 
‘  Grosser  Lutherischer  Narr.’  Pauli,  ‘  Schimpf  und  Ernst.’ 

1523.  Luther’s  Song  on  the  burning  of  the  martyrs  in  Brussels.  Hans  Sachs’ 
‘  Wittenbergisch  Nachtigall.’  Death  of  Hutten. 

15 24.  Luther’s  first  Hymn-book;  the  Psalms  in  German.  Hans  Sachs’ 
Dialogues. 

1525.  Manuel,  ‘  Ablasskramer.’ 


342  Chronological  Table . 

1527.  Hieronymus  Erasers  New  Testament.  Hans  Sachs’ ‘Lucretia.’  Burkard 
Waldis,  ‘  Verlorner  Sohn.’  University  of  Marburg. 

1528.  Luther’s  ‘  Ein  veste  Burg  ist  unser  Gott,’  in  the  Wittenberg  Hymn-book 
of  this  year.  Manuel,  ‘  Krankheit  der  Mess.’  Agricola’s  Proverbs. 

1529.  Hutten’s  posthumous  Dialogue  ‘  Arminius.’  Gnapheus,  ‘Acolastus’  (the 
prodigal  son). 

1530.  Luther’s  Fables.  Hans  Sachs’  *  Virginia.’ 

1531.  Sebastian  Franck,  c  Chron:ca,  Zeitbuch  und  Geschichtbibel.’ 

1532.  Sixt  Birck,  ‘Susanna.’  Sebastian  Franck’s  first  anonymous  collection  of 
Proverbs. 

3  533*  ‘Fierabras.’  Hans  Sachs’ first  biblical  diamas. 

1534.  Luther’s  Bible  finished.  Dietenberg’s  Bible  (Roman  Catholic).  Sebas¬ 
tian  Franck,  ‘Teutscher  Nation,  aller  Teutschen  Volcker  Herkommen.’ 
£  Jacob  und  seine  Sohne,’  Magdeburg  Drama,  by  Greff  and  Major.  The 
Fables  of  Erasmus  Alberus. 

1:535.  ‘  Die  vier  Haimonskinder  ;’  ‘  Octavianus ;  ’  Crocus,  ‘Joseph;  ’  Rebhun, 
‘  Susanna.’ 

1536.  ‘Magelone.’ 

1 537.  Johann  Eck’s  Translation  of  the  Bible.  Agricola’s  tragedy,  ‘Johann 
Hus.’ 

1538.  Naogeorg,  ‘  Pammachius.’ 

1339.  ‘  Ritter  Galmy.’ 

1540.  Jorg  VVickram,  ‘  Verlorner  Sohn.’  Naogeorg,  ‘Mercator.’ 

1541.  Luther’s  Bible  revised.  Naogeorg,  ‘  Incendia.’ 

1 543.  Copernicus,  ‘De  revolutionibus.’  Naogeorg,  ‘  Hamanus.’ 

1544.  University  of  Konigsberg.  Chryseus,  ‘  Hofteufel.’  Beuther’s  High- 
German  translation  of  Reineke  Fuchs. 

1545.  Hans  Sachs  begins  to  dramatise  tragic  stories. 

1546.  Council  of  Trent.  Luther’s  death. 

1 547.  Charles  V  takes  Wittenberg. 

1548.  Burkard  Waldis’  ‘  Esop.’ 

1 549.  Dedekind,  ‘  Grobianus.’ 

1550.  Wickram,  ‘Tobias.’ 

1551.  Scheid,  ‘  Gro!  ianus.’  Wickram,  ‘  Gabriotto  und  Reinhard.’  Naogeorg, 
‘  Hieremias.’ 

1552.  Naogeorg,  ‘  Judas  Iscariotes.’ 

1554.  Wickram,  ‘  Knabenspiegel,’  ‘  Goldfaden.’ 

1555.  Religious  Truce.  Sleidanus,  ‘  De  statu  religionis  et  reipublicae  Carolo  V 
caesare.’  Wickram,  ‘  Rollwagenbiichlein.’ 

1556.  Wickram,  ‘  Gute  und  bose  Nachbarn.’  Jacob  Frey,  ‘  Gaitengesell- 
schaft.’ 

1557.  Montanus,  ‘  Wegkurzer.’  Hans  Sachs’  Tragedy  ‘Hiirnen  Seufrid.’ 

1558.  University  of  Jena.  Hans  Sachs’  collected  works,  Vol.  I.  Lindener, 

‘  Katzipori.’ 

15:9.  Valentin  Schumann,  ‘ Nachtbiichlein.’ 

1360.  Flans  Sachs,  Vol.  II. 

1561.  Hans  Sachs,  Vol.  III.  (Scaliger’s  ‘  Poetica.’) 


Early  New  High- German  Period. 


343 


jij  3.  Kirchhof,  ‘  Wendunmuth.’ 

15 66.  Mathesius’  Life  of  Luther.  Schopper,  *  Speculum  vitae  aulicae  ’ 
(Reineke  Fuchs). 

1569.  1  Amadis’ begins  to  appear  (-1594).  Buchanan’s  ‘Jephthes’  acted  in 
Strassburg. 

1570.  Fischart  comes  forward  as  a  Protestant  champion. 

1572.  Fischart,  ‘  Eulenspiegel  ’  rhymed.  ‘  Aller  Praktik  Grossmutter,’  ‘Claus 
Narr.’ 

1573.  Lobwasser’s  Psalms.  Fischart,  ‘  Flohhatz.’ 

1575.  Fischart,  ‘  Gargantua.’ 

1576.  Fischart,  ‘  Gliickhaft  Sell  iff.’  Frischlin,  ‘Rebecca.’  Death  of  Hans 
Sachs.  University  of  Helmstadt. 

1577.  Fischart,  ‘  Podagrammisch  Tiostbiichlein.’  Frischlin,  ‘Susanna.’ 

1578.  Johannes  Clajus,  ‘  Grammatica  Germanicae  linguae.’  Fischart,  ‘  Ehe- 
zuchtbiichlein.’  Frischlin,  ‘  Priscianus  vapulans.’  Hans  Sachs,  Vol.  IV. 

1579.  Fischart,  ‘  Bienenkorb.’  Frischlin,  ‘  Hildegardis  magna,’  ‘Frau  Wen- 
delgard.’  Hans  Sachs,  Vol.  V. 

1580.  Fischart,  ‘  Jesuiterhiitlein.’  Frischlin,  ‘  Phasma.’ 

1581.  University  of  Altorf. 

1584.  Frischlin,  ‘Julius  redivivus.’ 

1587.  Popular  books,  ‘  Faust,’  ‘  Hans  Clauert.’ 

1588.  Fischart  on  the  destruction  of  the  Armada. 

1593  4.  The  Dramas  of  Duke  Henry  Julius  of  Brunswick. 

1595.  Rollenhagen,  ‘  Froschmauseler.’ 

1596.  Kepler,  ‘  Prodomus  dissertationum  cosmographicarum,  continens :  Mys- 
terium  cosmographicum.’ 

1597.  ‘  Die  Schildbiirger.’ 

1599.  Widmann’s  Faust-book. 

1603.  Johann  Arndt,  ‘  Wahres  Christenthum’  (-1610). 

1606.  The  tragedy  of  Saul  acted  in  Strassburg. 

1607.  The  ‘  Conflagratio  Sodomae’  of  Saurius  acted  in  Strassburg.  Wolfhart 
Spangenbei  g,  ‘  Ganskonig.’ 

1608.  The  Ajax  of  Sophocles,  recast  in  Latin,  and  acted  at  Strassburg. 

1609.  Hirtzwig,  ‘  Belsazar’  acted  in  Strassburg.  Kepler,  ‘  Astronomia  Nova.’ 

1612.  Briilow,  ‘Andromeda.’  Johann  Arndt,  ‘  Paradiesgartlein.’  Jacob 
Bohme,  ‘  Morgenrothe  im  Aufgang.’ 

1613.  Briilow,  ‘  Elias.’ 

1614.  Briilow,  ‘  Chariclia.’ 

1615.  Briilow,  ‘  Nebucadnezar.’ 

1616.  Briilow,  ‘Julius  Caesar.’  Cluverius,  ‘Germania  antiqua.* 

1617.  Hirtzwig,  ‘  Lutherus  ’  Kielmann,  ‘  Tetzelocramia.’  Opitz,  ‘Aris¬ 
tarchus.’  August  24,  The  ‘  Fruchtbringende’  Society. 

1618.  Beginning  of  the  Thirty  Years’  War.  Weckherlin,  ‘  Oden  und  Gesange’ 
(2nd  Book,  1619). 

1619.  Kepler,  ‘  Harmonice  mundi.’ 

1620.  ‘  Englische  Comodien  und  Tragodien.’ 

1621.  Last  Low  German  Bible. 


344  Chronological  Table. 

1624.  ‘Opicii  Teutsche  Poemata’  (Zincgref’s  collection).  Opitz,  ‘  Buch  von 
der  deutschen  Poeterei.’ 

1627  ( April  13).  First  German  Opera.  Kepler,  ‘Tabulae  Rudolphinae.’ 

1630.  ‘Liebeskampf  oder  anderTheil  der  Englischen  Comodien  und  Tragodien.’ 

1633.  ‘  Aufrichtige  Tannengesellschaft  ’  of  Strassburg. 

1634.  Johann  Rist  ‘  Musa  teutonica.’ 

1638.  Philipp  von  Zesen,  ‘  Melpomene.’  Jacob  Balde,  ‘  De  vanitate  mundi.’ 

1640  ( circa b  Moscherosch,  ‘  Gesichte  Philanders  von  Sittewalt.’ 

1643.  Zesen’s  ‘  Deutschgesinnte’  Society.  Jacob  Balde,  ‘  Carmina  lyrica.’ 
Hagelgans’  ‘Arminius.’ 

1644.  ‘  Pegnitzschafer.’ 

1645.  Zesen,  *  Adriatische  Rosemund.’ 

1646.  Paul  Fleming,  ‘Teutsche  Poemata.’ 

Hew  High-German  Period. 

1648.  The  Peace  of  Westphalia.  Paul  Gerhardt’s  first  Church  Plymns 
published. 

1649.  Frederick  Spee,  ‘  Giildnes  Tugendbuch,’  ‘Trutz  Nachtigall.’ 

1650.  Andreas  Gryphius,  ‘Leo  Arminius’  (composed  1646). 

1652.  Lauremberg’s  Scherzgedichte. 

1654.  Logau’s  Epigrams.  Schwieger’s  ‘  Liebesgrillen.’ 

1657.  Angelus  Silesius,  ‘  Cherubinischer  Wandersmmn,’  ‘  Heilige  Seelenlust.’ 
Andreas  Gryphius,  ‘  Katharina  von  Georgien,’  *  Cardenio  und  Celinde,’ 
‘  Carolus  Stuardus’  (written  1649).  4  Peter  Squenz’  (written  between  1647 
and  1^50). 

1658.  Rist’s  Elb  Swan  Order. 

1659.  Andreas  Gryphius,  ‘  Papinianus.’ 

1660  ( Oct .  10).  The  ‘  Dornrose’  of  Andreas  Gryphius  first  acted. 

1663.  Scriver,  ‘Gottholds  zufallige  Andachten.’  Schottelius,  ‘ Ausfiihrliche 
Arbeit  von  der  deutschen  Hauptsprache.’  Andreas  Gryphius,  ‘  Horri- 
bilicribrifax  ’  (written  between  1647  and  1650). 

1664.  Joachim  Rachel,  ‘  Satirische  Gedichte.’ 

1665.  Franciscus  Junius  publishes  the  Gothic  Gospels.  University  of  Kiel. 

1667.  Paul  Gerhardt  ;  first  complete  edition 

1668.  ‘  Simplicissimus.’  Christian  Weise,  ‘  Uberfliissige  Gedanken  der  grii- 
nenden  Jugend.’ 

1670.  Schaubiihne  Englischer  und  Franzosischer  Comodianten.  (Among  these, 
plays  of  Moliere.) 

1671.  Christian  Weise,  ‘Die  drei  Hauptverderber.’ 

1672.  Christian  Weise,  ‘Die  drei  argsten  Erznarren.’ 

1673.  Christian  Weise,  ‘Die  drei  kliigsten  Leute.’ 

1674.  Pfitzer’s  Faust-book.  (Boileau,  Art  poetique). 

1675.  Angelus  Silesius,  ‘  Sinnliche  Betrachtung  dervier  letzten  Dinge.’  Spener, 
‘  Pia  desideria.’  Scriver,  ‘  Seelenschatz  ’  (-16  j  1). 

1678.  Christian  Weise,  Rector  in  Zittau.  German  Opera  in  Hamburg  (-1738). 

1679.  Christian  Weise’s  first  Tragedies.  Joachim  Neander,  4  Bundeslieder 
und  Dankpsalmen.’  Abraham  a  Sancta  Clara,  ‘  Merks  Wien.’ 


New  High-German  Period. 


345 


1682.  *  Leipzig  Acta  Eruditorum.’ 

1685.  Dresden  Court  comedy  actors  (-1692). 

1687  to  i68-<.  Thomasius  delivers  the  first  course  of  German  Lectures. 
Cochem,  ‘  History-book.’ 

1688.  Thomasius,  ‘  Monatsgesprache’  (-1689).  Pufendorf  in  Berlin.  Ziegler, 
‘  Asiatische  Banise.’ 

16S9.  Lohenstein,  £  Arminius  and  Thusnelda’  (-1690). 

1690.  Thomasius  lectures  at  the  Ritterakademie  in  Halle. 

1691.  Spener  in  Berlin.  Cochem,  ‘  Leben  Christi.’  (?)  PTench  Tragedies  trans¬ 
lated  and  played  in  Brunswick  (-1699). 

1692.  Francke  in  Halle. 

1694.  University  of  Halle. 

1696.  Christian  Reuter,  ‘  Schelmuffsky.’ 

1697.  Christian  Wernicke’s  Epigrams. 

1700.  Berlin  Academy.  Freiherr  von  Canitz,  ‘  Nebenstunden  unterschiedener 
Gedichte.’ 

1705.  Neumeister,  ‘  Geistliche  Cantaten.’  Christian  Weise’s  last  Plays. 

1706.  Wolff,  professor  in  Halle. 

1 708.  Permanent  German  Theatre  in  Vienna. 

1709.  (Beginning  of  the  English  Weekly  Newspapers.) 

1710.  Leibniz,  ‘  Theodicee.’ 

1 71 1.  Johann  von  Besser,  ‘Works.’ 

1712.  Brockes’  Oratorio  of  the  Passion. 

1713.  Frederick  William  I  of  Prussia  ascends  the  throne. 

1714.  First  German  weekly  newspaper,  ‘Der  Verniinftler  ’  (Hamburg). 

1716.  Death  of  Leibniz. 

1719.  (Robinson  Crusoe). 

1721.  ‘Discourse  der  Maler’  (Zurich).  Brockes  ‘  Irdisches  Vergniigen  in 
Gott.’  Vol.  I  (9  vols.  to  1748). 

1723.  Christian  Wolff  banished  from  Prussia.  Christian  Gunther,  ‘  Gedichte.’ 

1724.  Gottsched  in  Leipzic.  Hamburg  weekly  paper  c  Der  Patriot.’ 

1725.  Gottsched’s  ‘Verniinftige  Tadlerinnen.’  Pradon’s  ‘Regulus,’  played  in 
Leipzic. 

1727.  Gottsched’s  ‘  Biedermann.’  The  Neuber  troop  of  actors. 

1728.  The  Faust-book  by  the  author  calling  himself  der  Christlich  Mein- 
ende. 

1729.  Hagedorn,  ‘Versuch  einiger  Gedichte.’  Bach’s  Passion  Music,  accord¬ 
ing  to  St.  Matthew. 

1730.  Gottsched,  ‘Critische  Dichtkunst.’ 

1731.  ‘Insel  Felsenburg’  (-1743). 

1732.  Haller.  ‘Versuch  schweizerischer  Gedichte.’  Bodmer’s  prose  trans¬ 
lation  of  Paradise  Lost.  Gottsched,  *  Cato ;  ’  ‘  Beitrage  zur  critischen 
Historie  der  deutschen  Sprache,  Poesie  und  Beredsamkeit  ’  (-1744). 

1 733.  University  of  Gottingen. 

1734.  Bodmer,  ‘  Charakter  der  deutschen  Gedichte.’ 

1736.  Gottsched’s  Poems. 

1 737*  Pyra,  ‘Tempel  der  wahren  Dichtkunst.’ 


34<5  Chronological  Table. 

1738.  Hagedom,  ‘Fabeln  und  Erzahlungen.*  Frederick  the  Great,  *  Con¬ 
siderations  sur  l’etat  present  du  corps  politique  de  l’Europe.’ 

1739.  Liscow,  Collection  of  satirical  and  serious  writings. 

1740.  Frederick  the  Great  ascends  the  throne.  Christian  Wolff  recalled  to 
Halle.  ‘  L’ Antimachiavel.’  Gottsched,  ‘  Deutsche  Schaubiihne  ’  (-1745). 
Breitinger,  ‘  Critische  Dichtkunst ;  ’  ‘  Critische  Abhandlung  von  den  Gleich- 
nissen.’  Bodmer,  ‘Critische  Abhandlung  von  den  Wunderbaren.’ 

1741.  Handel’s  Messiah.  Shakespeare’s  Julius  Caesar  translated  by  C.  W. 
von  Borck.  Schwabe,  ‘  Belustigungen  des  Verstandes  und  Witzes  (con¬ 
tains  Zacharia’s  ‘  Der  Renommist’). 

1742.  Uz,  ‘  Friihling.’ 

1743.  The  Operetta,  ‘Der  Teufel  ist  los.’ 

1744.  The ‘Bremer  Beitrage’ (-1748).  Gleim,  ‘Scherzhafte  Lieder.’  Frederick 
the  Great  revives  the  Berlin  Academy. 

1745.  Thyrsis  and  Damon’s  (Pyra  and  Lange)  friendly  Songs.  Gottsched, 
*  Neuer  Bfichersaal  ’  (-1 7  54). 

1746.  Gellert,  "Fabeln  und  Erzahlungen;’  ‘Leben  der  schwedischen  Grafin.’ 
Anacreon  translated  by  Uz  and  Gotz. 

1747.  Iiagedorn,  ‘Oden  und  Lieder.’  Elias  Schlegel,  ‘Theatrical  Works.’ 
The  first  regular  play  performed  in  Vienna. 

1748  ( Jan •)•  Lessing’s  ‘Junge  Gelehrte’  acted.  Klopstock’s  ‘Messiah’ 
(the  first  three  books).  Brockes’  ‘  Irdisches  Vergniigen  in  Gott.’  Vol.  ix. 
Specimens  of  the  Minnesingers  (published  by  Bodmer).  Gottsched, 
‘  Deutsche  Sprachkunst.’  The  Neuber  troop  of  actors  at  Vienna.  Lessing 
goes  to  Berlin. 

1749.  Kleist,  ‘  Friihling.’ 

1750.  Baumgarten,  ‘  zEsthetica.’  Voltaire  in  Berlin.  Hagedom,  ‘Moralische 
Gedichte.’  Frederick  the  Great,  ‘  CEuvres  du  Philosophe  de  Sans  Souci.’ 

1751.  Frederick  the  Great,  ‘Memoires  de  Brandebourg.’  Rabener,  ‘  Sammlung 
satirischer  Schriften’  (-1755).  Gottsched,  ‘Das  Neueste  aus  der  anmu- 
thigen  Gelehrsamkeit  ’  (-1762). 

1752.  ‘Der  Teufel  ist  los’  revised  by  Christian  Felix  Weise,  and  performed  at 
Leipzic. 

1753.  Enlarged  edition  of  Blagedorn’s  ‘Moralische  Gedichte.’  Lessing’s 
Works,  Parts  I,  II 

1754.  Gessner,  ‘Daphnis.’  Lessing’s  Works,  Parts  III,  IV. 

1 755*  Lessing’s  Works,  Parts  V,  VI:  ‘Miss  Sara  Sampson.’  Winckelmann, 
‘  Gedanken  fiber  die  Nachahmung  der  griechischen  Werke  in  der  Malerei, 
und  Bildhauerkunst.’  Kant,  ‘  Allgemeine  Naturgeschichte  und  Theorie 
des  Himmels.’ 

1756.  Seven  Years’  War  begins.  Gessner,  ‘  Idyllen.’ 

1 75 7.  Gleim’s  first  ‘ Kriegslieder.’  Gellert,  ‘Geistliche  Oden  und  Lieder;’ 
‘  Chriemhilden  Rache  ’  (the  Nibelungenlied,  partly  published  by  Bodmer). 
Bibliothek  der  schonen  Wissenschaften  und  freien  Kiinste  (-1806). 

1758.  Gleim’s  ‘  Kriegslieder,’  collected  in  one  work.  Klopstock,  ‘Geistliche 
Lieder.’  ‘  Sammlung  von  Minnesingern  aus  dem  schwabischen  Zeitpunkte,’ 
by  Bodmer  (-1759). 


New  High-  German  Period. 


347 

u 

1759.  Letters  on  Literature  (-1765).  Lessing,  Scenes  from  ‘  Faust,’  ‘Philotas,’ 
‘Fabeln.’  Christian  Felix  Weise,  ‘  Beitrag  zum  deutschen  Theater’ 
(-1768).  Hamann,  ‘  Sokratische  Denkwiirdigkeiten.’ 

1760.  Musaus,  ‘Grandison  der  Zweite  ’  (-1762), 

1761.  Abt,  ‘  Vom  Tode  fiirs  Vaterland.’  Wieland,  *  Araspes  und  Panthea.’ 

1762.  Wieland’ s  Shakespeare  (-17 66). 

1 763.  Peace  of  Hubertsburg. 

1764.  Winckelmann,  ‘  Geschichte  der  Kunst  des  Alterthums.’  Kant,  ‘  Beob- 
achtungen  liber  das  Gefiihl  des  Schonen  und  Erhabenen.’  Wieland, 
‘Don  Sylvio  von  Rosalva.’  Thiimmel,  ‘ Wilhelmine.’ 

1765.  Nicolai,  ‘Allgemeine  deutsche  Bibliothek’  (-1806).  Leibniz,  ‘CEuvres 
philosophiques  ’  (contains  the  ‘Nouveaux  essais  sur  l’entendement  humain’). 

1766.  Lessing,  ‘Laokoon.’  Kant,  ‘Traume  eines  Geistersehers.’  Wieland, 
‘Komische  Erzahlungen ;  ’  ‘  Agathon  ’  (-1767).  Gersttnberg,  ‘Gedicht 
eines  Skalden.’ 

1767.  Lessing,  ‘ Minna  von  Barnhelm ‘  Hamburgische  Dramaturgic’ (-1 769). 
Herder,  ‘ Fragmente.’  Mendelssohn,  ‘Phadon.’  Chr  F.  Weisse,  ‘Ko¬ 
mische  Opern’  (-1771), 

1768.  Wieland,  ‘Musarion;’  ‘Idris.’  Gerstenberg,  ‘  Ugolino.’  ‘  Ossian,’  by 
Denis  (-1 769).  Sterne’s  ‘  Sentimental  Journey,’  translated  by  Bode  (-1769). 

1769.  Lessing,  ‘  Wie  die  Alten  den  Tod  gebildet.’  Herder,  ‘Kritische  W alder.’ 
Klopstock,  ‘  Hermann’s  Schlacht.’  Moser  begins  his  ‘  Osnabriickische 
Geschichte.’  Gdttingen  and  Leipzic  ‘  Musenalmanach  ’  for  1770.  Hermes, 

‘  Sophiens  Reise.’  Ayrenhoff,  ‘  Der  Postzug.’ 

1770.  Wieland,  ‘Die  Grazien.’  Johann  Georg  Jacobi,  Collected  Works 
(-1774).  Goethe  and  Herder  in  Strassburg. 

1771.  Klopstock,  ‘Oden.’  Claudius,  ‘Der  Wandsbecker  Bote.’  Schroder, 
director  of  the  Theatre  in  Hamburg,  first  time  (-1780).  Haller,  ‘Usong.’ 
Wieland,  ‘  Amadis.’  Sulzer,  ‘Allgemeine  Theorie  der  schonen  Kiinste’ 
(-1774).  Freiherr  von  Zedlitz  made  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction 
in  Prussia. 

1772.  Lessing’s  ‘Emilia  Galotti.’  The  ‘Frankfurter  gelehrten  Anzeigen,’ 
edited  by  Merck  ;  with  the  assistance  of  Herder  and  Goethe.  Herder,  ‘  Ur- 
sprung  der  Sprache.’  The  Gottingen  ‘Hain.’  Gleim,  ‘Licder  fur  das 
Volk.’  Wieland,  ‘  Goldner  Spiegel.’  Wieland  in  Weimar. 

1773.  Fly-leaves,  ‘von  deutscher  Art  und  Kunst.’  Goethe’s  ‘  Gotz.’  Burger, 
‘Lenore.’  Gleim,  ‘Gedichte  nach  den  Minnesingern.’  Klopstock  finishes 
his  Messiah.  Wieland,  ‘Deutscher  Meikur’  (-1810);  ‘  Alceste.’  Les¬ 
sing’s  contributions  ‘  Zur  Geschichte  und  Litteratur’  (-1781).  Nicolai, 

‘  Sebaldus  Nothanker’  (-1776).  The  Order  of  the  Jesuits  suppressed  by 
the  Pope. 

1774.  The  First  Fragment  of  the  Anonymous  Wolfenbutteler.  Moser,  ‘Pa- 
triotische  Phantasien.’  Herder,  ‘Alteste  Urkunde ;  ’  and  other  ‘Storm 
and  Stress  ’  writings.  Goethe,  ‘  Clavigo  ;  ’  ‘  Werther,’  Lenz,  ‘  Hofmeister.’ 
Wieland’s  ‘  Abderiten  ’  begun.  Bode  translates  Sterne’s  ‘  Tristram  Shandy.’ 
Jacobi,  *  Iris.’  Klopstock,  ‘  Gelehrtenrepublik.’  Basedow,  ‘  Elementar- 
werk.’ 


34 8  Chronological  Table. 

1775.  Karl  August,  Duke  of  Weimar.  Goethe  in  Weimar.  Lavater, ‘Physio- 
gnomik’  (-1778).  Klinger,  ‘Otto.’  Paul  Weidmann,  ‘Johann  Faust.’ 
Court  Theatre  in  Gotha.  The  ‘  Weisskunig’  is  printed. 

1776.  The  Burgtheater  in  Vienna ;  ‘Court  and  National  Theatre.’  Goethe, 
‘  Stella.’  Lenz,  ‘  Soldaten.’  Klinger,  ‘  Zwillinge  ;  ’  ‘  Sturm  und  Drang.’ 
Maler  Muller,  ‘  Situation  aus  Fausts  Leben.’  H.  L.  Wagner.  ‘  Kinder- 
morderin.’ — Wieland,  ‘Gandelin.’  Miller,  ‘Siegwart ‘  Deutsches  Mu¬ 
seum’  (-1791). 

1777.  The  further  Fragments  of  the  Anonymous  Wolfenbiitteler  (-1778).  Wie¬ 
land,  ‘  Geron  der  Adelich.’  Jung,  *  Heinrich  Stilling’s  Jugend.’ 

1778.  Lessing,  ‘  Anti-Goeze ; ’  ‘Ernst  und  Falk,  Gesprache  fiir  Freimaurer.’ 
Herder,  ‘ Volkslieder ’  (-1779).  Burger,  ‘Gedichte.’  Maler  Muller, 
‘Faust’s  Leben  dramatisirt,’ First  Part.  Hippel,  ‘  Lebenslaufe’  (-1781). 
Meissner,  The  ‘  Skizzen,’  begin. 

1779.  Lessing,  ‘Nathan  der  Weise.’  Mannheim  National  Theatre. — Gleim, 
‘Gedichte  nach  Walther  von  der  Vogelweide.’  Poems  by  the  brothers 
Stolberg.  Gottwerth  Muller,  ‘  Siegfried  von  Lindenberg.’ 

1780.  Lessing,  ‘Erziehung  des  Menschengeschlechts.’  Wieland,  ‘  Oberon.’ 
Johannes  Muller,  ‘Geschichten  der  schweizerischen  Eidgenossenschaft  * 
(— 1 795)-  Schlozer’s  ‘  Briefwechsel  ’  begins.  Frederick  the  Great,  ‘De  la 
litterature  allemande.’ 

1781.  {Feb.  15).  Death  of  Lessing.  Kant,  ‘Kritik  der  reinen  Vemunft.’ 
Dohm,  On  improving  the  civil  position  of  the  Jews.  Pestalozzi, 
‘  Lienhard  und  Gertrud’  (-1785).  Schiller,  ‘  Rauber.’  Voss,  Translation 
of  the  Odyssey. 

1782.  Musaus,  ‘  Volksmarchen  ’  (—  t 7S6). 

1783.  Schiller,  ‘Fiesco.’  Holty’s  Poems,  published  by  Stolberg  and  Voss. 
Jean  Paul,  ‘  Gronlandische  Prozesse.’  The  Berlin  ‘  Monatschrift  ’  begins. 

1784.  Schiller,  ‘  Kabale  und  Liebe.’  Voss,  ‘  Luise.’  Kortum,  ‘Jobsiade.’ 
Blumauer’s  Travesty  of  the  Hmeid.  Myller,  ‘Sammlung  Deutscher 
Gedichte  aus  dem  12,  13,  und  14  Jahrhunderte  ’  (-1785).  Herder, 
‘  Ideen  ’  (-1791).  Kant,  ‘Was  ist  Aufklarung?’  Mendelssohn,  ‘Jeru¬ 
salem.’ 

1785.  Goethe’s  Poems,  ‘Edel  sei  der  Mensch  ’  and  ‘Prometheus,’  become 
known  through  Fritz  Jacobi.  Voss,  ‘  Gedichte.’  K.  Ph.  Moritz,  ‘Anton 
Reiser’  (-1790).  Iffland,  ‘  Die  Jager.’  Mendelssohn,  ‘  Morgenstunden ; ’ 
‘  Allgemeine  Litteraturzeitung,’  Jena. 

1786.  Death  of  Frederick  the  Great.  The  Royal  National  Theatre  in  Berlin. 
Schroder  director  of  the  Theatre  in  Hamburg — second  time  (-1790). 
Goethe  goes  to  -Italy. 

1787.  Herder,  ‘Gott.’  Goethe’s  ‘Works’  (-1790);  ‘  Iphigenie.’  Schiller, 
‘  Don  Carlos.’  Heinse,  ‘  Ardinghello.’  Matthison,  ‘Gedichte.’  Johannes 
Muller,  ‘  Darstellung  des  Fiirstenbundes.’ 

1788.  Frederick  the  Great,  ‘  Histoire  de  mon  temps,’  with  the  continuation. 
Archenholz,  ‘  Geschichte  des  siebenjahrigen  Kriegs.’  Schiller,  ‘  Abfall  der 
Niederlande.’  Kant,  ‘Kritik  der  praktischen  Vemunft,’  Goethe,  ‘Egmont.’ 
Goethe  returns  to  Weimar. 


New  High- German  Period.  349 

1789.  Schiller,  Professor  in  Jena.  ‘  Geisterseher ;’  ‘Die  Kunstler.’  Kotzebue, 

*  Menschenhass  und  Reue.’ 

1790.  Kant,  ‘  Kritik  der  Urtheilskraft.’  Goethe,  ‘Metamorphose  der  Pflanzen;’ 
Fragment,  ‘ Faust ;  ’  ‘Tasso.’  Schiller  begins  his  history  of  the  Thirty 
Years’  War.  Forster,  ‘  Ansichten  vom  Niederrhein.’  Jean  Paul,  ‘  Schul- 
meisterlein  Wuz.’ 

1791.  Goethe  director  of  the  Weimar  Theatre  (-1817).  Klinger,  ‘Faust.’ 

1792.  Fichte,  ‘  Kritik  aller  Offenbarung.’ 

1 793.  Voss,  ‘  Homer’  (the  Iliad  new,  the  Odyssey  revised).  Schiller,  ‘  Tiber 
Anmuth  und  Wiirde.’  Herder’s  ‘  Humanitatsbriefe.’  Jean  Paul,  ‘  Unsicht- 
bare  Loge.’ 

1794.  Goethe,  ‘  Reineke  Fuchs.’  Friendship  of  Schiller  and  Goethe.  Fichte, 

‘  Wissenschaftslehre.’ 

1795  ‘Horen’  (-97).  Schiller’s  Musenalmanach  for  1796  (continued  to 
1800).  Goethe,  ‘Wilhelm  Meister’s  Lehrjahre’  (-1796).  ‘  Unterhaltungen 
deutscher  Ausgewanderten.’  Roman  ‘Elegien.’  ‘  Schweizerieise  von  1779.’ 
Schiller,  ‘  Briefe  iiber  asthetische  Erziehung;’  ‘Uber  das  Naive;’  ‘Die 
sentimentalischen  Dichter.’  Friedrich  August  Wolf,  ‘Prolegomena  ad 
Homerum.’ — Jean  Paul,  ‘Hesperus.’  Heinrich  Zschokke,  ‘  Abellino  der 
grosse  Bandit.’ 

1796.  ‘  Xenien.’  Goethe,  ‘  Alexis  und  Dora.’  Schiller,  ‘  Beschluss  der  Abhand- 
lung  iiber  naive  und  sentimentalische  Dichter.’  Ifiland,  director  of  the 
Berlin  Theatre  (-1814).  Jean  Paul,  ‘  Quintus  Fixlein.’ 

1797.  Goethe,  ‘  Hermann  und  Dorothea;’  ‘Der  neue  Pausias.’  Balladen-alma- 
nach  (Schiller’s  Musenalmanach  for  1 798).  Holderlin,  ‘  Hyperion  ’ 
(-1799).  Tieck,  ‘  Volksmarchen.’  Schlegel’s  Shakespeare  (-1801,  and 
1810).  Count  Soden,  ‘  Faust.’  Schelling,  ‘  Ideen  zu  einer  Philosophie 
der  Natur.’ 

1798  (Oct.  12).  ‘Wallenstein’s  Lager,’  acted  at  Weimar.  Goethe,  ‘Propy- 
laen  (-1800).  Tieck,  ‘  Franz  Stembald.’  Schelling,  ‘  Weltseele.’ 

1 799  (Jan.  30),  ‘Die  Piccolomini  ’ ;  (April  20),  ‘Wallenstein’s  Tod,’  acted 
at  Weimar.  (Dec.) ;  Schiller  moves  to  Weimar.  W.  von  Humboldt, 
‘  Asthetische  Versuche.’  Schleiermacher’s  Discourses,  ‘  Uber  die  Re¬ 
ligion.’  Schelling,  ‘  Erster  Entwurf  eines  Systems  der  Naturphilosophie.’ 
Friedrich  Schlegel,  ‘  Lucinde.’ 

1800  (June  14).  ‘  Maria  Stuart,’  acted  at  Weimar.  Jean  Paul,  ‘  Titan  ’  (-1803). 

1801.  Schiller,  ‘  Jungfrau  von  Orleans.’  Collin,  ‘  Regulus.’  Tiedge,  ‘Urania.’ 
Engel,  ‘  Herr  Lorenz  Stark.’  Gauss,  ‘  Disquisitiones  arithmeticae.’ 

1802.  Novalis’  Works.  University  of  Landshut. 

1803  {March  19)  ‘  Braut  von  Messina’  acted  in  Weimar.  Heinrich  von 
Kleist,  ‘  Familie  Schroffenstein.’  Goethe,  ‘  Der  Geselligkeit  gewidmete 
Lieder.’  Tieck,  ‘  Minnelieder.’  Hebei,  ‘  Alemannische  Gedichte.’  E.  M. 
Arndt,  ‘  Gedichte  ;  ’  ‘  Germanien  und  Europa.’  The  University  of  Heidel¬ 
berg  reconstituted  by  Karl  P'riedrich  of  Baden. 

1804  (March  17).  ‘  Wilhelm  Tell  ’  acted  in  Weimar.  ‘  Jenaische  Allgemeine 
Litteraturzeitung.’  Jean  Paul,  ‘  Flegeljahre.’  Schink,  ‘  Faust.’ 

1805  (May  10).  Death  of  Schiller.  Goethe,  ‘  W’inckelmann  und  sein  Jahrhun- 


35° 


Chronological  Table. 


dert;’  ‘  Rameau’s  Neffe  ’  of  Diderot.  Herder,  ‘  Cid,’ — (Oct.  17).  Capitu¬ 
lation  of  Ulm.  E  M.  Arndt  begins  bis  ‘  Geist  der  Zeit.’  Daub  and 
Creuzer,  £  Studien  ’  (Heidelberg).  (In  the  autumn)  Amim  and  Brentano 
‘  Des  Knaben  Wunderhorn’  (1806-1808). 

1806  ( Oct  14).  Battle  of  Jena.  Goethe’s  Works  in  12  vols.  (-1808).  Hegel, 

‘  Phanomenologie  des  Geistes.’ 

1807  ( Jan .  29).  Johannes  Muller’s  academical  Lecture,  *  De  la  gloire  de 
Frederic  II’  translated  by  Goethe. — (Winter,  1807-8).  Fichte  delivers  his 
addresses  to  the  German  nation.  Gorres’,  ‘  Volksbticher.’  F.  H.  von  der 
Hagen,  ‘  Erneuung  des  Nibelungenlieds.’  Wilken  begins  his  £  Geschichte 
der  Kreuzziige.’ 

i8c8.  The  first  part  of  Goethe’s  £  Faust’  published.  Fouque,  ‘Sigurd  der 
Schlangentodter.’  H.  von  Kleist,  £ Penthesilea.’  ‘Die  Einsiedlerzeitung.’ 
£  Heidelbergische  Jahrbucher.’  K.  Fr.  Eichhorn  begins  his  ‘Deutsche 
Staats-und  Rechtsgeschichte.’  Fr.  Schlegel,  £  Sprache  und  Weisheit  der 
Indier.’  A.  von  Humboldt,  £  Ansichten  der  Natur.’ 

1809.  Goethe,  ‘  Wahlverwandtschaften,’ ‘  Pandora.’  Zacharias  Werner, ‘Februar 
24.’  Fr.  Schlegel,  ‘  Gedichte/  A.  W.  Schlegel,  ‘Vorlesungen  liber  dra- 
matische  Kunst  und  Litteratur’  (-18 11).  (Jan.)  W.  von  Humboldt  is 
made  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  in  Prussia. 

1810.  Goethe.  Masque,  £  Romantische  Poesie;’  ‘  Farbenlehre.’  University 
of  Berlin  opened.  Arnim,  ‘  Grafin  Dolores.’  H.  von  Kleist,  ‘  Erzah- 
lungen’  (-1811) ;  Kathchen  von  Ileilbronn.’  Jahn,  ‘  Deutsches  Volks- 
thum.’ 

1811.  Goethe,  ‘Dichtung  und  Wahrheit,’  vol.  i.  Fouque,  ‘Undine.’  Arnim, 
‘Halle  und  Jerusalem;’  ‘Isabella  von  Agypten.’  Kleist,  ‘Der  zerbro- 
chene  King.’  Justinus  Kerner,  ‘  Reiseschatten.’  Niebuhr  begins  his  Roman 
History.  Johannes  Muller,  ‘  24  Bucher  allgemeiner  Geschichte.’  University 
of  Frankfort  moved  to  Breslau. 

181?.  Goethe,  ‘  Dichtung  und  Wahrheit,’  vol.  ii.  Works  in  20  vols.  (-1819). 
Tieck,  ‘  Phantasus’  (-1817).  Grimm,  ‘  Kinder  und  Hausmarchen.’  Joseph 
von  Hammer,  ‘  Divan  des  Hafis.’ 

1813.  E.  M.  Arnd',  ‘  Lieder  fiir  Deutsche;’  ‘Der  Rhein  Deutschlands  Strom, 
nicht  Deutschlands  Greuze.’  Mullner,  ‘  Schuld.’ 

1814.  Theodor  Korner,  ‘ Leier  und  Schwert.’  Rlickert,  ‘Deutsche  Gedichte 
von  Freimund  Raimar.’  Chamisso,  ‘Schlemihl.’  E.  T.  A.  Hoffmann’s 
Tales  (-1822).  Hegner,  ‘  Saly’s  Revolutionstage.’  Goethe,  ‘Dichtung 
und  Wahrheit.’  vol.  iii.  Savigny,  ‘  Vom  Beruf  unsrer  Zeit  fiir  Gesetzge- 
bung  und  Rechtswissenschaft.’  Gorres,  ‘  Rheinischer  Merkur’  (-1816). 
The  Order  of  Jesuits  restored. 

1815.  Goethe,  ‘Des  Epimenides  Erwachen.’  Schenkendorf,  ‘Gedichte.’ 
Uhland,  ‘Gedichte.’  Klingemann,  ‘Faust.’  Eichendoiff,  ‘  Ahnung  und 
Gegenwart.’  Fr.  Schlegel,  ‘Vorlesungen  liber  Geschichte  der  alten  und 
neuen  Litteratur.’ 

1816.  Goethe,  ‘  Italienische  Reise,’  vol.  i.  ‘Kunst  und  Alterthum  (-1832). 
Uhland,  ‘  Vaterlandische  Gedichte.’  Ohlenschlager,  ‘  Corregio.’  Clauren, 
‘Mimili.’ — Jacob  Grimm,  ‘Poesie  im  Recht.’  Karl  Lachmann.  ‘Uber 


New  High- German  Period. 


35i 


die  urspriingliche  Gestalt  des  Gedichts  von  der  Nibelungen  Noth.’  Franz 
Bopp,  ‘  Uber  das  Conjugationssystem  der  Sanskritsprache  in  Verglei- 
cbung  mit  jenem  der  griechischen,  lateinischen,  persischen  und  ger- 
manischen  Sprache.’  Schlosser  begins  his  ‘  Weltgeschichte.’ 

1817.  Goethe  retires  from  the  direction  of  the  Theatre;  ‘  Neu-deutsche 
reiigios-patriotische  Kunst ;  ’  *  Italienische  Reise,’  vol.  ii.  Bockh,  ‘  Staats- 
haushaltung  der  Athener.’  The  University  of  Wittenberg  united  with 
Halle.  Hegel,  ‘  Encyclopadie.’  The  Evangelical  Union.  Arnim,  ‘Kro- 
nenwachter.’  Brentano,  ‘  Wehmiiller,’  ‘  Kasperl  und  Anneil.’  Grillparzer, 

*  Ahnfrau.’ 

1818.  Grillparzer,  ‘Sappho.’  Ernst  Schulze,  ‘Bezauberte  Rose.’  Wilhelm 
Muller,  ‘ Miillerlieder Translation  of  Marlowe’s  ‘Faust.’ — University 
of  Bonn. 

1819.  Goethe,  * Westostlicher  Divan.’  Schopenhauer,  ‘Die  Welt  als  Wille 
und  Vorslellung.’  Jacob  Grimm  begins  his  ‘Deutsche  Grammatik.’ 

1821.  Platen,  ‘  Chaselen,’  ‘  Lyrische  Blatter.’  Wilhelm  Muller,  ‘Lieder  der 
Griechen.’  Tieck,  ‘Gedichte’;  his  ‘Novellen’  begun.  Goethe,  ‘Wilhelm 
Meister’s  Wanderjahre,’  Part  I.  H.  von  Kleist’s  posthumous  works : 

‘  Hermannsschbcht,’  ‘  Prinz  von  Homburg.’  Grillparzer,  ‘Goldnes  Vliess.’ 
Schleiermacher,  ‘  Der  christliche  Glaube  ’  (-1822). 

1822.  Riickert,  ‘Ostliche  Rosen,’  ‘  Liebesfriihling.’  H.  Heine,  ‘Gedichte.’ 
Uhland,  ‘  Walther  von  der  Vogelweide.’ 

1823.  Raimund,  ‘  Barometermacher.’  Wilibald  Alexis,  ‘  Walladmor,’  purport¬ 
ing  to  be  a  free  translation  from  the  English  of  Sir  Walter  Scott.  Raumer, 

‘  Hohenstaufen  ’  (  1825).  Schlosser,  ‘  Geschichte  des  iSn  Jahrhunderts.’ 

1824.  Ranke,  ‘Zur  Kritik  neuerer  Geschichtschreiber,’  ‘  Geschichten  der 
romanischen  und  germanischen  Volker  von  1494  bis  1535.’  Bockh 
begins  his  ■  Corpus  Insci  iptionum  Graecarum.’  F.  G.  Welcker,  ‘  Die  ZEschy- 
lische  Trilogie  Prometheus.’  Heinrich  Zschokke.  ‘Sammtliche  ausge- 
wahlte  Schriften,’  40  vols  (-1828).  Eichendorff,  ‘  Krieg  den  Philistern, 
dramatisirtes  March en  ’  Raimund,  ‘  Diamant  des  Geisterkonigs.’ 

1825.  Grillparzer,  ‘  Konig  Ottokars  Gliick  und  Ended  Riickert,  ‘Amaryllis, 
ein  landliches  Gedicht’  (written  1812). 

1826.  H.  Heine,  ‘  Reisebilder’ (-1831).  Immermann  ‘  Cardenio  und  Celinde.’ 
Platen,  ‘  Verhangnisvolle  Gabel.’  Raimund,  ‘Madchen  aus  der  Feenwelt.’ 
Holderlin,  ‘  Gedichte.’  Justinus  Kerner,  ‘  Gedichte.’  Eichendorff,  ‘  Tauge- 
nichts.’  Ilauff,  ‘Lichtenstein.’  ‘  Monumenta  Germaniae  historica,’ 
vol.  i.  Lachmann’s  edition  of  the  ‘Nibelungenlied.’  T.  e  University  of 
Munich. 

1827.  Simrock’s  Translation  of  the  ‘Nibelungenlied.’  Spindler,  ‘Der  Jude’ 
(historical  Novel).  Goethe’s  Works  in  40  vols.  (-1S30).  (Winter  of 
1827-28)  Humboldt’s  Cosmos  Lectures. 

1828.  Jacob  Grimm,  ‘  Rechtsaltei  thiimer.’  Raupach,  ‘Der  Nibelungen  Llort.’ 
Immermann,  ‘Friedrich  der  Zweite.’  Grillparzer,  ‘Ein  treuer  Diener 
seines  Herrn.’  Raimund  ‘  Alpenkonig  und  Menschenfeind.’  Platen, 
‘  Gedichte.’  Goethe  publishes  h is  Correspondence  with  Schiller  (-1829). 

1829.  Goethe,  ‘Wilhelm  Meister’s  Wanderjahre.’  Platen,  ‘  Romantischer 


352 


Chronological  Table. 


CEdipus.’  Grabbe,  ‘  Don  Juan  und  Faust.’  Ludwig  Borne’s  Collected 
Works  (-1834).  Lachmann’s  ‘  Critik  der  Sage  von  den  Nibelungen.’ 

1830.  Raupach’s  Hohenstaufen-Dramas  (-1837). 

1831.  Grillparzer,  f  Des  Meeres  und  der  Liebe  Wellen.’  Usteri,  *  Dichtungen.’ 
1832  ( March  22).  Death  of  Goethe.  The  second  part  of  ‘  Faust’  published. 


1835.  Gervinus,  'Geschichte  der  poetischen  Nationallitteratur  der  Deutschen’ 
(-1842),  since  1853  called  ‘  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Dichtung.’  Jacob 
Grimm’s'  Deutsche  Mythologie’  leads  us  back  to  the  original  sources  of 
German  Poetry. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX. 


ABBREVIATIONS  USED  IN  THE  FOLLOWING  NOTES. 

A.  D.  B.  =  Allgemeine  Deutsche  Biographie.  Leipzic,  1875. 

Anz.  and  Zs.  Anz.  =  Anzeiger  fur  deutsches  Alterthum  und  deutsche  Litteratur. 
Berlin,  1876. 

Beitr.  =  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Sprache  und  Litteratur.  H.Paul 
und  W.  Braune.  Halle,  1874. 

Denkm.  =  Denkmaler  deutscher  Poesie  und  Prosa.  Miillenhoff  und  Scherer. 
Berlin,  1873. 

D.  N.  L.  =  Deutsche  National-Litteratur.  Joseph  Kiirschner,  Berlin  and 
Stuttgart. 

Ed.  =  Edition  or  edited  by. 

Erl.  =  Erlauterungen  zu  den  deutschen  Classikem.  Leipzic. 

Germ.  =  Germania.  Vierteljahrschrift  fur  deutsche  Alterthumskunde.  Stutt¬ 
gart,  1856.  Vienna,  1859. 

Godeke  =  Grundriss  zur  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Dichtung.  Hanover,  1859. 
Dresden,  1881. 

Koberstein  =  Koberstein’s  Grundriss  der  Geschichte  der  deutschen  National- 
litteratur.  Leipzic,  1872-73. 

Progr.  =  Programme,  a  small  treatise. 

Q.  F.  -  Quellen  und  Forschungen  zur  Sprach-  und  Culturgeschichte  der  ger- 
manischen  Volker.  B.  ten  Brink  und  Scherer.  Strassburg,  1874. 

Sch.  =  Scherer. 

Schnorr’s  Archiv  =  Archiv  fur  Litteraturgeschichte.  Leipzic,  1870. 

Wackemagel=  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Litteratur.  Basle,  1879. 

Weim.  Jahrb.  =  Weimarisches  Jahrbuch  fur  deutsche  Sprache,  Litteratur  und 
Kunst.  Hanover,  1854-57. 

Zs.  =  Zeitschrift  fur  deutsches  Alterthum.  Leipzic,  1841.  Berlin,  1856. 

Zs.  f.  d.  Phil.  =  Zeitschrift  fur  deutsche  Philologie.  Halle,  1S69. 

VOL.  II. 


a  a 


354 


Bibliography. 


I.  The  Ancient  Germans,  i.  pp.  1-15. 

For  Pytheas ;  MiillenhofFs  Deutsche  Alterihumskunde  i.  211  seq.,  and 
Scherer’s  Vortrage  und  Aufsatze,  p.  21  seq.  The  explanation  of  the  word 
‘  Germans ’  is  from  Zeuss,  Grammatica  Celtica,  p.  735  (2nd  ed.  773).  The 
statement  as  to  the  origin  of  Tacitus’  Germania  is  based  on  an  hypothesis  of 
Miillenhoff.  On  the  interest  taken  by  the  Romans  in  the  Germans,  see  A. 
Riese,  ‘  Die  Idealisirung  der  Naturvolker  des  Nordens  in  der  griechischen  und 
romischen  Litteratur.’  (Heidelberg,  1875.) 

1.  The  Aryans ,  pp.  3-6. 

On  the  name  of  Aryan ,  H.  Zimmer  in  Bezzenberger’s  Beitrage  iii.  137.  On 
the  primitive  Aryans,  Kuhn,  Zur  altesten  Geschichte  indogermanLcher 
Volker  (Weber,  Indische  Studien  i.  321)  ;  the  first  chapters  of  Grimm’s 
Geschichte  der  deutschen  Sprache  (1848) ;  Pictet,  Les  origines  Indo- 
Europeennes  ou  les  Aryas  primitifs  (Paris,  1859)  ;  Schleicher,  in  Hildebrand’s 
Jahrbiicher  fiir  Nationalokonomie  und  Statistik,  vol.  i. ;  Justi  in  Raumer’s 
liistorisches  Taschenbuch,  1862,  p.  301  ;  Pick,  Die  ehemalige  Spracheinheit 
der  Indogermanen  Europa’s,  p.  266  (Gottingen,  1873)  ;  O.  Schrader, 
Sprachvergleichung  und  Uigeschichte,  (Jena,  1883)  — On  the  character  of  Aryan 
poet?y,  Heinzel  Q.  F.  x.  49.  On  the  origin  of  mythology ,  Scherer’s  Vortrage 
und  Aufsatze,  385.  On  stories  of  animals ,  Zeitschrift  fiir  osterreichische 
Gymnasien,  1870,  p.  47  seq  On  anecdotes,  fairy  stories  and  short  tales,  Zs. 
Anz.  iii.  185.  On  charms  in  verse ,  Kuhn,  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  vergleichende 
Sprachforschung,  xiii.  49  seq.  and  113  seq  — On  the  origin  of  Aryan  metre, 
Scherer,  Zur  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Sprache,  2nd  ed.  p.  624. 

2.  Germanic  Religion,  pp.  6-9. 

This  section  is  chiefly  based  on  Miillenhoff  in  Schmidt’s  Zeitschrift  fiir 
Geschichtswissenschaft,  viii.  209.  See  also  Miillenhoff,  Deutsche  Alterthums- 
kunde.  On  Dyaus,  the  Aryan  Heaven-God,  see  Max  Muller’s  Lectures  on  the 
Science  of  Language  ii.  468  (8th  ed.).  On  proper  names,  Miillenhoff,  Nor- 

dalbingische  Studien,  i.  210  ;  Zur  Runenlehre,  p.  42  seq.  (Halle,  1852). 

€ 

3.  Oldest  remains  of  Poetry,  pp.  10-15. 

The  Wessobrunner  Gebet,  Denkm.  No.  i.  The  Germanic  Accent,  Sch.  Zur  Ge¬ 
schichte  der  deutschen  Sprache,  p.  86  seq.  On  the  character  of  the  Old  High- 
German  Poetry,  Heinzel,  Q.  F.  x.  On  choral  poetry,  Miillenhoff,  De  anti- 
quissima  germanorum  poesi  chorica  (Kiliae,  1847).  The  explanation  of  the 
1  barditus ’  is  also  from  Miillenhoff.  The  Mecklenburg\& rses  to  Wodan,  Grimm’s 
Mythologie.  4th  ed.,  p.  129.  Summer  and  Winter,  ibid.  p.  638.  The  Love¬ 
greeting,  Denkm.  No.  28.  Riddles,  Denkm.  No.  7.  The  Merseburg  charms, 
Denkm.  No.  iv.  1,  2. — On  the  priests  as  proclaimers  of  the  law,  Sch.  Zs.  Anz., 
iv.  101.  The  three  needs,  taken  from  Richthofen’s  Friesische  Rechtsquellen, 
pp.  44-49.  The  sentence  of  banishment,  Grimm’s  Deutsche  Rechtsalterthii- 
mer,  p.  39.  Alliterative  formulas  ;  ibid,  p.  6  seq.  Heyne,  Germ.,  ix.  p.  437. 


Chapters  //-///. 


355 


II.  Goths  and  Franks,  pp.  16-37. 

On  the  division  into  periods  compare  Scherer’s  Geschichte  der  deutschen 
Dichtung  im  elften  und  zwolften  Jahrhundert,  Q.  F.  xii.  pp.  i-io;  Zur 
Geschichte  der  deutschen  Sprache,  pp.  11-15. 

1.  The  Heroic  Songs ,  pp.  19-27. 

For  authorities  on  the  history  of  the  heroic  legends,  see  V. —  Employment  of 
Runes ,  Liliencron  and  Mtillenhoff,  Zur  Runenlehre  (Halle,  1852). — The  epic 
bard,  Priscus,  p.  205,  11,  Bonn;  compare  Miillenhoff,  Zur  Geschichte  der 
Nibelunge  Not  (Brunswick,  1855),  P-  XI- — The  song  of  Hildebrand,  Denkm. 
No.  2. 

2.  Ulfilas ,  pp.  28-32. 

See  Waitz,  tjber  das  Leben  und  die  Lehre  des  Ulfilas,  (Hanover,  1840). 
Bess^ll,  Uber  das  Leben  des  Ulfilas,  (Gottingen,  i860).  Kaufmann  Zs.  xxvii. 
pp.  193  seq. — The  last  and  best  editions  of  Gothic  literary  documents  are: 
Bernhardt,  Vulfila  (Halle,  1875)  ;  Stamm’s  Ulfilas,  published  by  Heyne,  8th  ed. 
(Paderbom,  1885).  The  Gothic  toast,  correctly  explained,  by  Dietrich  in  his 
Aussprache  des  Gothischen,  p.  26  (Marburg,  1862).  The  word  vulthrs  in  the 
Codex  Brixianus  of  the  Gospels  :  see  Haupt,  Opuscula  ii.  407  ;  Bernhardt  Zs. 
f.  d.  Phil.  ii.  24.  The  formula  froia  annes  (i.e.  frauja  armais)  in  Augustine, 
Epistola  178;  Holtzmann  Germ.  ii.  448.  ‘Fit  etiam  de  hordeo  opus  bonum, 
quod  nos  graece  dicimus  alfita,  latine  vero  polentam,  Gothi  vero  barbarice 
fenea ,  magnum  remedium  cum  vino  calido  temperatum’;  Anthimi  de  ob- 
servatione  ciborum  epistula  ad  Theudericum  regem  Francorum,  64  ed. 
Rose.  On  the  Salzburg  MS.,  Wilhelm  Grimm,  Kleine  Schriften  iii.  85  seq., 
95  seq.  On  the  historical  connection  of  Gothic  with  Old  High-German 
Christianity,  R.  von  Raumer  Zs.  vi.  401. 

3.  The  Merovingians,  pp.  32-37. 

The  Irish',  see  Haureau,  Singulariteshistoriques  et  litteraires,  pp.  1-36  (Paris, 
1861).  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Latin  hymns  made  use  of  really  belong  to 
Columban. — On  Rhyme  :  Wilhelm  Grimm,  Zur  Geschichte  des  Reims,  Ab- 
handlungen  der  Berliner  Akademie  1850  (Berlin  1852)  ;  Uhland,  Schriften,  i, 
366  seq.  ;  W.  Masing,  Uber  Ursprung  und  Verbreitung  des  Reims  (Dorpat, 
1866). — The  explanation  of  Grimm  s  Law ,  Sch.  Zur  Geschichte  der  deutschen 
Sprache,  p.  168.  Th z  language  of  Charlemagne'.  Miillenhoff,  Denkm.  p.  x.  xxiii. 
The  Strassburg  Oath'.  Denkm.  No.  67.  The  expression  ‘  deutsch  ’ :  Jacob 
Grimm,  Grammatik,  3rd  Ed.  1.  12. 


III.  The  Old  High-German  Period,  pp.  38-59. 

The  Anglo-Saxons  and  their  poetry  :  ten  Brink,  Geschichte  der  englischen 
Litteratur  i.  12-84  (Berlin,  1877).  On  Charlemagne's  influence  on  German 


A  a  2 


356 


Bibliography. 


literature:  Sch.  Vortrage  und  Aufsatze,  p.  71-100,  the  fuller  proofs  in  the 
Denkm. — The  fragments  of  the  translation  of  St.  Matthew' s  Gospel  in  the 
Fragmenta  theotisca,  2nd  ed.,  by  Massmann  (Vienna,  1841),  and  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil, 
v.  381. — Muspilli :  Denkm.  No.  3. 

1.  The  First  Messianic  Poems ,  pp.  40-46. 

Fulda\  Rettberg,  Kirchengesohichte  Deutschlands,  i.  370  seq.;  Wattenbach, 
Deutschlands  Geschichtsquellen  im  Mittelalter,  ch.  ii.  §  13.  Rabanus  Maurus : 
Ebert,  Allegemeine  Geschichte  der  Litteratur  des  Mittelalters  im  Abendlande 
i.  120;  A  Latin  Life  of  Christ,  the  so-called  Tatian ,  edited,  with  the 
German  translation,  by  Sievers  (Paderborn,  1872). — The  Heljand :  editions 
by  Schmeller  (Munich,  1830,  40)  ;  M.  Heyne,  3d  ed.  (Paderborn,  1883)  \ 
H.  Riickert  (Leipzic,  1876);  Sievers  (Halle,  1878);  Behaghel  (Halle,  1882). 
Translations  by  Simrock,  Grein.  Vilmar,  Deutsche  Alterthiimer  im  Heljand, 
2nd  ed.  (Marburg,  1882).  Windisch,  Der  Heljand  und  seine  Quellen  (Leipzic, 
1 858).  Other  works  on  the  subject  in  Sievers. — Otfried ,  newest  edition  by 
Kelle  (with  grammar  and  glossary,  3  vols.,  Regensburg,  1836-81)  ;  Piper  (Pader¬ 
born,  1878);  Erdmann  (Halle,  1882),  and  others.  Translation  by  Kelle.  Other 
works  in  Piper. —  Christ  and  the  Woman  of  Samaria ,  Denkm.  No.  10. — 
Prologue  of  the  Lex  Salica :  see  the  edition  by  Merkel  (Berlin,  1850),  p.  93; 
Waitz,  Das  alte  Rechte  der  salischen  Franken  (Kiel,  1846),  p.  37. 

2.  The  Mediceval  Renaissance ,  pp.  46-53. 

For  Otto’s  visit  to  the  tomb  of  Charlemagne :  Thietmar  von  Merseburg, 
iv.  29,  Monumenta  Germanise,  S.S.  (i.e.  Scriptores)  iii.  781. 

Charlemagne  and  his  learned  friends :  Haureau,  Charlemagne  et  sa  cour 
(Paris,  1854);  Wattenbach,  ch.  ii.  §§  4-8;  Ebert,  ii.  3-112.  See  too, 
Schnaase,  Geschichte  der  bildenden  Kiinste,  2nd  ed.,  iii.  499  seq.,  526  seq, 
621  seq.  The  Latin  poems  in  Dlimmler,  Poetae  latini  aevi  Carolini  (Berlin, 
1881). 

St.  Gall.  The  sources  for  the  history  of  St.  Gall  are  given  by  G.  Meyer  of 
Knonau,  in  the  Mittheilungen  des  historischen  Vereins  von  St.  Gallen, 
part  12-17  (1870-1879)  :  see  also  the  Translation  of  Ekkehard  iv,  Casus 
sancti  Galli,  in  the  Geschichtschreiber  der  deutschen  Vorzeit,  zehntes  Jahr- 
hundert,  vol.  xi.  (Leipz.  1878). — Psalms  in  German  rhymed  verse,  Denkm. 
no.  13. —  Waltharius  manu  for'iis,  published  by  J.  Grimm  in  Grimm  und 
Schmeller’s  Lateinische  Gedichte  vGottingen,  1838) ;  R.  Peiper  (Berlin,  1873)  ; 
J.  V.  Scheffel  und  Holder  (Stuttgart,  1874),  with  Scheffel's  translation.  See 
also  W.  Meyer  of  Speyer,  Philologische  Bemerkungen  zum  Waltharius  (Miinch- 
ner  Sitzungsberichte,  1873.  3).  For  the  Legend,  Mullenhoff,  Zs.  xii.  273-279. 
Further  accounts  in  Scheffel  und  Holder. — Notker  :  the  works  attributed  to 
him  are  published  by  Hattemer,  St.  Gallens  altteutsche  Sprachschatze,  vols.  ii. 
iii.  and  more  recently  by  Piper.  See  also  Denkm.  Nos.  26,  70,  80. 

Roswitha :  Editions  by  Barack  (Nlirnberg,  1858),  Bendixen  (Liibeck,  1858)  ; 
an  excellent  translation  by  Bendixen  (Altona,  1850,  1853).  Compare  Kopke, 


Chapters  I  I  I- 1 V.  357 

Ottonische  Studien,  ii.  (Berlin,  1869),  Kopke,  Die  alteste  deutsche  Dichterin 
(Berlin,  1869).  Older  works  are  mentioned  in  Barack'. 

3.  The  Wandering  Journalists ,  pp.  53-59. 

For  the  Gleemen ,  see  Q.F.  xii.  11. — The  Ludwigslied,  Denkm.  No.  11.  The 
satiric  poem  on  a  broken-off  betrothal,  Denkm.  No.  28b.  Description  of  the 
boar,  ibid.  No.  26.  On  political  minstrel  poetry,  see  Uhland,  Schriften,  i.  472  ; 
Wackernagel,  i.  96  ;  Denkm.  No.  8  ;  Henning,  Q.F.,  xxxi.  16.  Otto  with  the 
Beard,  see  VI,  4.  Herzog  Ernst ,  see  IV.  3.  For  the  mixed  Latin  and  Geiman 
poetry  in  the  Song  of  Otho  the  Great,  and  Henry,  Denkm.  No.  18.  Latin  songs, 
Denkm.  Nos.  20-25.  The  Song  of  St.  George,  Denkm.  No.  17.  On  the  moral 
characteristics  of  the  period,  Q.  F.  xii.  4. 


IV.  Chivalry  and  the  Church,  pp.  60-91. 

Chivalry  :  see  Weinhold,  Die  deutschen  Frauen  in  dem  Mittelalter,  2nd  ed., 
2  vols.  (Vienna,  1882)  ;  Alwin  Schultz,  Das  hofische  Leben  zur  Zeit  der  Minne- 
sanger,  2  vols.  (Leipz.,  1879,  1880).  This  deals  chiefly  with  the  eleventh  and 
twelfth  centuries.  Q.  F.,  xii.  22. 

1.  Latin  Literature ,  pp.  62-71. 

Rudlieb  :  published  by  Schmeller,  in  Grimm-Schmeller  Lateinische  Gedichte 
(1838)  ;  Seiler  (Halle,  H82).  See  Zs.  Anz.,  ix.  70.  Zs.  xxvii.  332.  The 
legend  joined  on  to  Rudlieb  (J.  Grimm,  Lat  Ged.,  p.  220)  is  derived  from  the 
Eckenlied,  Strophe  82  seq.,  and  from  the  Biterolf,  lines  6451  seq.  (compare  the 
Klage,  110S);  the  Thidrekssaga  ch.  233-239  contains  a  more  recent  form  of  the 
same.  Grimm  recognised  its  connection  with  the  legend  ofWaltherand  Hildegund, 
1.  c.  3^4  seq.—  Otto  von  Freising,  published  in  the  Monumenta  Germanise, 
S.S.  xx.  83:  (also  separately,  1867).  See  further  Wattenbach,  Geschichtsquellen, 
chap.  v.  §  4.— The  Vagant  or  Goliard  and  the  Arch-Poet :  J.  Grimm,  Kleinere 
Schriften,  iii.  1  ;  Giesebrecht,  Allgemeine  Monatschrift,  1853  (p.  10  seq.,  344 
seq.)  ;  O.  Hubatsch,  Die  Lateinischen  Vagantenlieder  des  Mittelalters  (Gorlitz, 
1870) ;  Bailoti,  I  precursori  del  Rinascimento  (Florence,  1877).  Kuno  Francke, 
Zur  Geschichte  der  lateinischen  Schulpoesie  des  I2n  and  13’'  Jahrhunderts 
(Miinchen,  1879).  The  principal  collection  of  their  poems  is  the  Carmina 
Burana,  Schmeller’s  edition  (Stuttgart,  1847);  a  selection,  Gaudeamus ! 
Carmina  vagorum  selecta,  several  editions  (Leipz.,  1879).  Translation  by  L. 
Laistner ;  Golias  (Stuttg.,  1879).  Older  Latin  Lyrics  of  the  middle  ages  in 
Ilaupt,  Exempla  poesis  latinae  medii  aevi  (Vienna,  1834),  and  Ja^e,  Cambridger 
Lieder,  Zs.,  xiv,  491  seq. — The  Drama  of  Antichrist ,  published  by  Zetzschwitz 
(Leipz.,  1877)  >  W.  Meyer  of  Speyer,  (Munich.  1882,  Sitzungsberichte).  Trans¬ 
lations,  Zetzschwitz,  Wedde.  See  Sch.  Zs.,  xxiv.  450. 


358 


Bibliography . 


2.  Lady  World ’  pp.  71-79. 

On  Wirent  of  Grafenberg  and  Conrad  of  Wiirzburg  see  VI.  4.  The  descrip¬ 
tion  of  Lady  World,  Wackemagel,  Zs.  vi.  161.  See  for  fuller  details  Scherer, 
Geschichte  der  deutschen  Dichtung  ira  nn  und  1  2n  Jahrhundert  (Strasb., 
1875)  Q.  F.  xii.,  and  compare  Sch.  Geistliche  Poeten  der  deutschen  Kaiserzeit, 
2nd.  part  (Strasb.,  1S74-75),  Q  F.  i.  vii. 

Sermons'.  Denkm.  No.  86.  Description  of  Heaven  and  Hell,  ibid.  No.  30. — 
Poems  on  Old  Testament  subjects :  The  Wiener  Genesis  (ed.  Hoffmann’s  Fund- 
gruben,  ii.  9  ;  Massmann,  Deutsche  Gedichte  des  1211  Jahrhunderts,  p  235  ;  in 
modernised  style :  Genesis  and  Exodus  from  the  Millstatter  MS.,  by  Diemer ; 
Vienna,  1862)  :  the  Vorauer  Genesis  (pub.  by  Diemer,  Deutsche  Gedichte  des 
11"  und  1 2n  Jahrhunderts,  Vienna,  1849,  P-L;  The  Wiener  Exodus  (pub.  after  the 
Wiener  Genesis) ;  Moses,  Diemer,  32.  1-69.  6  ;  Bileam,  Diemer,  72.  8-85.  3;  Lob 
Salamos,  Denkm.  No.  35  ;  Die  diei  Junglinge  im  Feuerofen,  ibid.  36  ;  Judith, 
ibid.  37;  a  later  Judith,  Diemer,  127,  1-180,  29. — Poems  on  New  Testament 
subjects'.  Johannes,  Hoffmann’s  Fundgruben,  i.  p.  130,  1-140,  10;  Adelbrecht’s 
Johannes,  Mones  Anz.,  viii.  (1839)  47— 53  ;  The  ‘  Friedberg  Christ  und  Anti- 
Christ,’ Denkm.  No.  83;  *  Leben  Jesu,’  (Diemer,  229.  1-276.  4;  Hoffmann’s 
Fundgruben,  140,  11-190,  28,  this  contains  the  description  of  the  crucifixion 
mentioned  on  p.  74.)  ;  the  poem  of  the  nun  Ava,  Diemer  276-4  seq.  Fund¬ 
gruben,  i.  p.  190,  29  seq.  ‘  Hamburger  jiingstes  Gericht,’  Hoffmanns 
Fundgruben,  2.  135.  ‘  Gleinker  Enteerist,’  Fundgruben,  2.  106  seq.;  ‘  Ane- 

genge,’  Hahn,  Gedichte  des  I2a  und  i,5n  Jahrhunderts-  (Quedlinburg,  1840) 
pp.  1-40,  see  Schroder,  Q.  F.  44. — Legends.  Mittelfrankisches  Legendar,  pub. 
by  Hugo  Busch  (Halle,  1879);  a^s0  German  rhymed  legends  of  Silvester, 
^Egidius,  Andreas,  Paulus,  Veronica,  Vespasianus,  Margaretha,  Juliana,  Veit 
Servatius,  Albanus,  Tungdalus. — ‘  Annolied ,’  ed.  Opitz,  1639,  republished  by 
Roth  1847,  Bezzenberger  1848. — ‘  Kaiser chronik,'  ed.  Massmann,  3  vols. 
(Quedlinburg,  1849,  1 854)  ;  Diemer,  (Vienna,  1849). 

Didactic  poeijjs:  Meregarto,  Denkm.  No.  32;  Summa  theologiae,  ibid.  34 
‘Von  der  Siebenzahl,  ibid.  44;  Priest  Arnold’s  Poem,  Diemer,  333.  1. — 
Priestly  demagogues  :  ‘  Memento  mori,’  pub.  by  Barack,  Zs.  xxiii.  209,  compare 
Zs  xxiv.  426,  xxv.  188.  ‘  Vom  Recht,’  Karajan,  Deutsche  Sprachdenkmale  des 
1 2n  Jahrhundert’s  (Vienna,  1846),  pp.  3-16. 

Forms  of  penance,  Confessions  of  faith.  Litanies,  Prayers  ;  ‘  Vorauer  Siinden- 
klage,’  Diemer,  295-316  ;  ‘Millstatter  Siindenklage,’  pub.  by  Rodiger,  Zs.  xx. 
255;  Hartmann’s  ‘Credo,’  Massmann,  Deutsche  Gedichte  des  I2n  Jahrhun¬ 
derts,  p.  i;  Heinrich’s  ‘Litanei,’  ibid.  43,  Ploffmann’s  Fundgruben,  ii.  216; 
a  woman’s  poetical  prayer,  Diemer,  375-378. 

Heinrich  von  Aid  Ik,  ed.  Heinzel  (Berlin,  1867),  compare  Zs.  xix,  241. 

Worship  of  the  Virgin.  Hymns  to  Mary,  Denkm.  38-42.  ‘  Frauenlob,’ 

ed.  W.  Grimm,  Zs.  x.  1-142.  Wernher’s  poems  on  the  Virgin,  ed.  Hoffmann, 
Fundgruben  ii.  145  ;  Feifalik  (Vienna,  i860). 

Fragment,  ‘  Comfort  in  despair l  Sch.  Zs.  xx.  346. 


Chapters  I V-  V. 

3.  The  Crusades ,  pp.  79-91. 


359 


For  the  pilgrimages ,  Rohricht  in  Raumer’s  Historiches  Taschenbuch,  5th 
Series,  5.  321. —  Ezzo's  Song,  Denkm.  No.  3T. —  Wi Hiram’s  Paraphrase  of  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  edited  by  Hoffmann  (Breslau,  1827)  ;  Seemiiller,  Q.  F.  28 
(Strassb.,  1878).  ‘  Lob  Salomos,’  Denkm.  No.  33.  ‘  Salomo  und  der  Drache,’ 

ibid.,  see  also  Sch.  Zs.  xxii.  19.  The  German  poems  of  Solomon  and  Mar- 
colfus,  published  by  F.  Vogt,  vol.  i.  (Halle,  1S80). 

La?nbrecht’s  Alexander,  ed.  Diemer,  Deutsche  Gedichte,  183,  1  ;  Massmann, 
Deutsche  Gedichte,  p.  64  ;  Weismann  (Frankfort,  1850). — Konrad's  Rolandslied, 
ed.W.  Grimm  (Gottingen,  1838) ;  Bartsch  (Leipz.,  1874)  1  see  Weiss,  Historiches 
Jahrbuch  der  Gorres-Gesellschaft,  i.  107  ;  Schroder,  Zs.  xxvii.  70.  The  Karl- 
meinet  was  edited  by  Keller  (Stuttgart,  1858),  and  explained  by  Bartsch  (Niirn- 
berg,  1861). 

Shorter  Epics.  1  Konig  Rother ,’  ed.  by  H.  Riickert  (Leipz.,  1872) ;  von 
Bahder  (Halle,  1884).  1  Herzog  Ernst,'  ed.  by  Bartsch  (Vienna,  1869).  See 

too,  Zs.  vii.  193,  xiv.  2^5.  ‘  St.  B randan?  ed.  Schroder  (Erlangen,  1871). 

‘  Orendel,'  ed.  von  der  Hagen  (Berk,  1844).  Ettmiiller  (Ziirich,  1858) ;  see 
Meyer,  Zs.  xii.  387  ;  Harkensee,  Untersuchungen  iiber  das  Spielmannsgedicht 
Orendel  (Kiel,  1879);  and  for  the  Myth,  Miillenhoff,  Alterthumskunde,  i.  32. 
‘St.  Oswald ,’  ed.  Ettmiiller  (Zurich,  1835),  Zs.  ii.  92;  see  Strobl,  Wiener 
Sitzungsberichte,  64,  457  ;  Edzardi,  Untersuchungen  iiber  das  Gedicht  von 
St.  Oswald,  (Hanover,  1876')  ;  Rodiger,  Zs.  xx.  Anz.  245. 

Graf  Rudolf ,  ed.  W.  Grimm,  1828,  2nd  ed.  1834  See  von  Sybel,  Zs.  ii.  235. 

On  mediaeval  tolerance,  see  Renan,  Averroes  et  PAverroisme,  2nd  ed.  (Paris, 
1865)  ;  H.  Reuter,  Geschichte  der  religiosen  Aufklarung  im  Mittelalter,  2  vols. 
(Berlin,  1875— 77^. — On  the  legend  of  the  sleeping  emperor  and  its  application 
to  Frederick  II,  see  George  Voigt,  in  Sybel’s  Ilistorische  Zeitschrift  xxvi. 
139;  also  his  Essay  ‘Die  Kiffhausersage ’  (Leipz.,  1871). 


V.  Middle  High-German  Popular  Epics,  pp.  92-134. 

National  Epics,  Wilhelm  Giimm,  Deutsche  Heldensage,  2nd  ed.  Berlin, 
1867;  Miillenhoff,  Zeugnisse  und  Excurse,  Zs.  xii.  253,  413;  see  Zs.  xv.  310. 
On  the  influence  of  various  German  districts  on  the  literature,  see  Q.  F.,  xii. 
20  seq. 

1.  The  Revival  of  Heroic  Poetry ,  pp.  93-101. 

See  chap.  ii.  of  Henning’s  Nibelungenstudien,  Q.  F.  xxxi,  also  Q.  F.,  xii.  92, 
note. — Saxon  popular  songs  ;  Saga  DiSriks  konungs  af  Bern  udgivet  af  C.  R. 
Unger  (Christiania,  1833) ;  this  Thidreks-saga,  formerly  called  the  Wilkinasaga, 
is  translated  by  Rassmann,  Deutsche  Heldensage,  No.  12  (Hanover,  1838).  The 
clerical  reaction  has  not  been  fully  studied,  see  Q.  F.,  xii.  19  seq. — For  the 
recitation  of  the  Heroic  poems,  Lachmann,  Uber  Singen  und  Sagen,  Ivleine 
Schriflen,  i.  461. — For  pp.  97-101,  see  especially  Uhland,  Schriften  zur 
Geschichte  der  Dichtung  und  Sage,  vol.  i.  (Stuttg.,  1865). 


Bibliography. 


2.  The  Nib  el ungenlied,  pp.  101-115. 

See  Lachmann,  Anmerkungen  zu  den  Nibelungen,  p.  333  seq.  ‘  Kritik  der 
Sage  von  den  Nibelungen  ’  ;  Miillenhoff,  Zs.  x.  146,  xxiii.  113.  Max  Rieger, 
Germ.  iii.  163.  Scherer,  Vortrage  and  Aufsatze  p.  101. 

The  MSS.  of  the  Nibelungep  form  three  classes,  represented  by  the 
Hohenems-Munich  MS.  (A)  which  stands  alone,  the  St.  Gall  MS.  (B)  and 
the  Hohenems-Lassberg  MS.  (C).  Lachmann  considers  A  as  representing  the 
original  text,  B  as  a  revision  of  a  MS.  of  class  A,  C  as  a  revision  of  a  MS.  of 
class  B.  He  took  A  for  the  foundation  of  his  edition  (‘  Der  Nibelungen  Noth 
und  die  Klage,’  pub.  by  Lachmann,  3rd  ed.  Berlin,  1851,  also  a  vol.  of  notes, 
Berlin,  1836).  Holtzmann,  ( Untersuchungen  fiber  das  Nibelungenlied,  1854), 
and  Zarncke  (Zur  Nibelungenfrage,  1854)  declared  class  C  to  be  the  oldest,  and 
took  MS.  C  as  their  authority.  That  C  is  the  latest  rendering  has  however 
been  proved  by  R.  von  Liliencron  (Uber  die  Nibelungenhandschrift  C,  Weimar, 
1856).  See  too,  Rieger,  Zur  Kritik  der  Nibelunge  (Giessen,  1855) ;  C.  Hof¬ 
mann,  Zur  Textkritik  der  Nibelungen  (Miinchen,  1872).— One  of  the  Minne¬ 
singer  MSS.  ascribes  a  number  of  ancient  songs  with  uncertain  rhymes  to 
a  Knight  of  Kurenberg.  Franz  Pfeiffer  (Der  Dichter  des  Nibelungenlieds, 
1862,)  considers  this  knight  to  be  the  author  of  the  Nibelungenlied.  Bartsch 
(Untersuchungen  fiber  das  Nibelungenlied,  Vienna,  1865,)  agrees  with  him, 
whilst  trying  to  establish  a  lost  original  form  of  the  poem  in  uncertain  rhymes ; 
B,  cited  as  the  oldest  text,  is  the  foundation  of  Bartsch’s  edition.  In  opposition 
to  this,  see  Zupitza,  Uber  Franz  Pfeiffer’s  Versuch  (Oppeln,  1 8  > 7)  ;  Vollmoller, 
Kurnberg  und  die  Nibelungen  (Stuttgart,  1874)  ;  Sch.  Zs.  xvii.  561,  xviii.  150, 
also  Paul,  Zur  Nibelungenfrage  (Halle,  1877).  Hermann  Fischer,  Die  For- 
schungen  fiber  das  Nibelungenlied  seit  Karl  Lachmann  (Leipzic,  1874).  suppoits 
the  theory  of  Bartsch. 

The  distinction  of  the  genuine  from  the  spurious,  and  the  real  songs  from 
the  continuations,  which  Lachmann  undertook  in  his  edition,  he  established  in 
the  ‘  Anmerkungen.’  His  views  on  the  origin  of  the  poem  are  partly  confirmed, 
partly  modified  by  Miillenhoff,  Zur  Geschichte  der  Nibelunge  Not  (^Brunswick, 
1855,  intended  also  to  disprove  the  views  of  Holtzmann  and  Zarncke,  1854), 
also  by  R.  Henning,  Nibelungen  Studien,  Q.F.  xxxi.  (Strassb.,  1883),  and  Rodiger, 
Kritische  Bemerkungen  fBerl.  1884')  ;  see  also  Sch.  Zs.  24,  274.  Heinrich 
Fischer,  Nibelungenlied,  oder  Nibelungenlieder  ?  (Hanover,  1859),  tries  to 
refute  these  opinions.  One  particular  point  of  view,  in  accordance  with 
Lachmann’s  arguments,  is  represented  in  Wilmanns’  Beitrage  zur  Erklarung 
find  Geschichte  des  Nibelungenliedes  (Halle,  1877).  See,  too,  Hugo  Busch, 
Die  urspriinglichen  Lieder  vom  Ende  der  Nibelungen  (Halle,  1882). 

Translations  by  Simrock  and  others.  Zarncke  gives  a  convenient  list  of  the 
works  on  the  subject  in  the  introduction  to  his  edition.  See  too,  R.  von  Muth, 
Einleitung  in  das  Nibelungenlied  <Paderbom,  1877). 

‘  A  song  about  KriemhilcT s  disloyalty  to  her  brothers ,’  for  this  see  Grimm’s 
Heldensage,  p.  49.  A  Saxon  bard  sings  it  as  a  warning  to  a  man  who  is  in 
danger ;  speciosissimi  carmiais  contextu  notissimam  Grimildae  erga  fratres 
perfidiam  de  industria  memorare  adorsus,  famosae  fraudis  exemplo  similium  ei 


Chapter  V. 


3fil 


metum  ingenerare  tentabat. — The  account  of  a  Latin  Nibelungenlied  composed 
by  order  of  Bishop  Piligrim,  of  Passau,  in  the  tenth  century,  starts  with  the 
assertion  that  this  Piligrim  was  uncle  to  the  Burgundian  Kings  murdered  by 
the  Huns,  and  has  not  therefore  the  least  guarantee  of  probability. 

3.  Dietrich  von  Bern ,  pp.  1 15-120. 

The  ‘  Klage,'  pub.  by  Lachmann  after  the  Nibelungenlied  ;  separate  editions 
by  Holtzmann,  Edzardi,  Bai  tsch. — The  ‘  Saxon  legends  ’  follow  the  Thidrekssaga 
(see  V  i).  The  various  Middle  High-German  poems,  pp.  116,  seq.,  are  col¬ 
lected  in  ‘Das  Deutsche  Heldenbuch  ’  (started  by  Miillenhoff),  vols.  1,  2,  3 
(Berlin,  1866,  1870).  Vol.  6  will  contain  the  Rosengarten  and  other  poems  men¬ 
tioned  p.  1 18.  For  the  present  Wilhelm  Grimm’s  edition  of  the  Rosengarten 
(Gottingen,  1836)  is  sufficient  authority.  Now,  for  the  ‘very  late  tradition,’  p. 
119,  see  Das  Deutsche  Heldenbuch,  A.  von  Keller  (Stuttgart,  1867),  p.  10. 
The  ‘  Hiirnen  Seifried ,’  Von  der  Hagen’s  Deutsches  Heldenbuch,  in  40,  vol.  2 
(Berlin,  1825).  The  later  ‘ Hildebrandslied,'  in  Uhland’s  Volkslieder,  No.  132. 
‘  Ermenrichs  Tod ,’  pub.  by  K.  Godeke  (Hanover,  1851);  also  in  Von  der 
Hagen’s  Heldenbuch,  in  8°,  vol.  ii,  537  (Leipzic,  1855b 

4.  Ortnit  and  Wolfdietrich ,  pp.  120- 123. 

On  myth  and  legend,  see  Miillenhoff,  Zs.  vi,  435  ;  xii,  346  seq.  The  his¬ 
torical  element,  compare  t<xt  with  Gregory  of  Tours,  3,  23-25. — ‘  Ortnit ,’ 
Miillenhoff,  Zs.  xiii,  185.  Deutsches  Heldenbuch,  vol.  iii  (Bed.  1871). — ‘  Wolf- 
dietrich,'  Miillenhoff,  Zur  Geschichte  der  Nibelungen  Not,  p.  23.  Deutsches 
Heldenbuch,  vols.  3,  4  (Berl.  1871-73). 

5.  Hilde  and  Gudrun ,  pp.  124- 134. 

The  legend,  cf.  Klee,  Zur  Hildesage  (Leipzic,  1873).  The  myth  is  con¬ 
nected  with  that  on  which  the  legend  of  Walther  and  Hildegunde  is  based. 
On  the  Norman  leader  Siegfried,  see  Diimmler,  Ostfrankisches  Reich,  ii,  271, 
274  seq.  Proofs  that  the  story  was  known  in  Bavaria  about  1100,  Miillenhoff, 
Zs.  xii,  314.  On  the  lost  poem  of  the  twelfth  century,  Sch.,  Q.  F.  vii,  63,  as  also 
on  the  probable  home  of  the  ‘Gudrun.’  This  has  been  preserved  to  us  only  in 
the  famous  Ambras  MS.  of  Maximilian  I  (see  p.  258).  Ed.  by  Vollmer  (Leipzic, 
1845),  Bartsch  (Leipzic,  1865,  see  Germ,  x,  41,  148),  Martin  (Halle,  1S72, 
with  explanation  and  commentary:  small  edition  1883),  Symons  (Halle,  1883, 
see  too,  Beitr.  ix,  1).  Separation  of  the  unauthentic  portions  :  Ettmiiller,  Gudrun 
Lieder  (Leipzic,  1841)  ;  Miillenhoff,  Kudrun,  die  echten  Theile  des  Gedichtes, 
with  a  critical  introduction  (Kiel,  1845);  Plonnies  (Leipzic,  1853).  Martin 
agrees  generally  with  Miillenhoff  as  to  the  interpolations.  Translations  :  Sim- 
rock,  A.  v.  Keller,  Niendorf,  Koch  (only  the  authentic  portions,  according  to 
Miillenhoff),  Klee,  &c.  Gervinus  began  an  edition  in  hexameters  (Leipzic, 
1836).  The  author  of  Gudrun  belonged  certainly  to  the  Austro-Bavarian  tribe, 
and  is  therefore,  as  a  countryman,  nearly  connected  with  Wolfram  and  Walther. 


3«2 


Bibliography. 


VI.  The  Epics  of  Chivalry,  pp.  135-186. 

The  ‘ Flore'  of  a  poet  of  the  lower  Rhineland  is  called  by  him  ‘  Floyris.’ 
Fragments  of  the  poem  are  published  by  Steinmeyer,  Zs.  xxi,  320.  The 
‘  Tristan,’  or  rather  ‘  Tristrant,’  of  Eilhard  von  Oberge  is  edited  by  F.  Lichten¬ 
stein,  Q.F.  19  (Stras;.burg,  1877).  See  Zs.  xxvi,  1. 

1.  Heinrich  von  Veldeke ,  pp.  1 37-1 45. 

For  Heinrich  VI,  and  his  Love  Songs,  see  Scherer’s  Deutsche  Studien  ii, 
10  seq. 

Heinrith  von  Veldeke.  For  the  Counts  of  Looz  and  Rineck,  Hegel,  For- 
schungen  zur  deutschen  Geschichte  xix,  569.  Veldeke’s  dialect,  Braune,  Zs. 
f.  d.  Phil,  iv,  249.  Veldeke’s  St.  Servatius,  Bormann’s  edition  (Maestricht, 
1858),  see  Bartsch,  Germ,  v,  410.  Meyer,  Zs.  xxvii,  146. — 1  Alneide',  ed.Ettmiiller 
(Leipz.  1852),  Behaghel  (Heilbronn,  1882).  For  his  sources — Pey,  in  Ebert’s 
Jahrbuch  fiir  romanische  und  englische  Litteratur  ii,  1  ;  see  too  Worner,  Zs. 
f.  d.  Phil,  iii,  106.  Virgil  in  the  Middle  Ages,  see  a  work  by  Comparetti  (in 
German,  Leipzic.  1875).  Veldeke’s  Songs,  ed.  Lachmann  und  Haupt,  Minne- 
sangs  Friihling,  No.  9,  see  Sch.,  Deutsche  Studien  ii,  71. 

Veldeke' s  followers.  In  and  around  Mainz  (?)  1  Moriz  von  Craon,’  edit,  by 
Haupt  in  the  Feslgaben  fiir  Homeyer  (.Berlin,  1871),  p.  27  ;  see  Bech,  Germ, 
xvii,  170. — ‘  Pilahcs,'  ed.  Massmann,  Deutsche  Gedichte,  p.  145  ;  Weinhold,  Zs. 
f.  d.  Phil,  viii,  253;  for  the  legend,  see  Creizenach,  Beitr.  i,  89;  Schonbach,  Zs. 
Anz.  ii,  166. — In  Thuringia,  Heinrich  von  Morungen,  see  the  Minnesangs 
Friihling,  No.  1 8,  comp.  Michel,  Q.F.  38,  Gottschau,  Beitr.  vii,  335.  Herbort 
von  Fritzlar,  pub.  by  Frommann  (Quedlinburg,  1837),  comp.  Germ,  ii,  49, 
177,  307,  also  H.  Dunger,  Die  Sage  vom  trojanischen  Kriege  (Leipz.  1869), 
Korting,  Dictys  und  Dares  (Halle,  1874).  Herbort’s  original  ‘  Benoit  de  St. 
More  et  le  roman  de  Troie,’  A.  Joly  (Paris,  1870).—^ -Albrecht  von  Halberstadt. 
Fragments  of  his  poems,  Zs.  xi,  358,  Germ,  x,  237.  The  whole  is  preserved 
only  in  Jorg  Wickram’s  revised  edition  (Mainz,  1545);  from  this  Haupt 
restored  the  Prologue,  Zs.  iii,  289;  further  attempts  at  restoration  by  Bartsch, 
Albrecht  von  Halberstadt  (Quedlinburg,  1861)  ;  see  J.  Grimm,  Zs.  viii,  10,  397, 
464. — Here  belong  ‘their  disciples,’  p.  143  ;  Otte,  author  of  ‘  Eraclius,’  (pub¬ 
lished  by  Graef,  Q.  F.  50),  the  unknown  author  of  ‘  Athis  und  Prophilias ,’  (the 
fragments  pub.  by  W.  Grimm,  in  the  Abhandlungen  der  Berliner  Akademie, 
1846,  1852  ;  comp.  Zs.  xii,  185,  and  Grimm’s  Kleine  Schriften  ii,  212  seq.) 

2.  Hartmann  von  Aue  a?id  Gottfried  von  Strassburg , 

pp.  145-161. 

For  the  importance  of  the  Upper  Rhine  in  literary  development,  see  Nitzsch, 
Deutsche  Studien  (Berl.  1879),  P-  1 2f>- — Heinrich  der  Glichezare ,  fragments  of 
his  poems  in  J.  Grimm,  Sendschreiben  an  Lachmann  (Leipz.  1840),  the  whole 
in  more  modern  rendering  in  J.  Grimm,  Reinhart  Fuchs  (Berlin,  1834),  p.  25. 

Friedrich  von  Hausen.  Minnesangs  Friihling,  No.  8.  See  Miillenhoff,  Zs. 
xiv,  l33'}  Lehfeld,  Beitr.  ii,  345.  Baumgartcn,  Zs.  xxvi,  105. — Reinmar  von 


Chapter  VI. 


363 


Hagenau.  Minnesangs  Friihling,  No.  20  ;  see  Erich  Schmidt,  Q.  F.  4,  (Strass- 
burg,  1874');  Regel,  Germ,  xix,  149.  Becker,  ibid,  xxii,  70,  T95.  Burdach, 
Reinmar  der  Alte,  und  Walther  von  der  Vogelweide  (Leipz.  1880). 

Hartmann  von  Aue.  Schieyer,  Das  Leben  und  die  Dichtungen  H.  v.  A. 
(Program.  Schulpforte,  1874);  Bauer,  Germ,  xvi,  155.  Von  Ow,  ibid.  162  ; 
Schmidt,  H.  v.  A.  Stand,  Heimat  und  Geschlecht  (Tubingen,  1875);  see  Mar¬ 
tin,  Zs.  Anz.  i,  126.  On  the  sequence  of  his  wriiings,  Naumann,  Zs.  xxii,  25. 
Collected  works,  published  by  Bech,  3  vols  (Leipz.  1867-69,  &c).  For  char¬ 
acteristics,  see  Wackeinagel,  pp.  209,  245,  254.  The  Songs,  Minnesangs 
Friihling,  No.  21  ;  see  Zs.  xiv,  144  ;  xv,  125  The  ‘  Biichlein,’  with  ‘  Der  armer 
Heinrich,’  published  by  Haupt.  See  O.  Jacob,  Das  zweite  Biichlein  ein  Hart- 
mannisches  (Naumburg,  1879). — ‘  Gregorius ,’  ed.  Lachmann  (Berl.  1838,  see 
Zs.  v,  32)  ;  Paul  (Halle,  1873,  1882).  See  Lippold,  Uber  die  Quelle  des 
Gregorius,  Hartmann’s  von  Aue  (Leipz.  1869).  The  original  (?),  Vie  du  Pape 
Gregoire  le  Grand,  edited  by  Luzarche  (Tours,  1857b — ‘  Der  arme  Heinrich ,’ 
ed.  by  the  brothers  Grimm,  1815;  Lachmann,  Auswahl,  1820;  W.  Muller, 
1842  ;  Haupt  (Le'pz.  1842,  2nd  ed.  1881)  ;  Paul  (Halle,  1882).  Translated 
by  Simrock.  See  P.  Cassel,  Die  Symbolik  des  Blutes,  und  der  arme  Heinrich  des 
H.  v.  A.  (Berlin,  1882). — ‘  Ereck]  edited  by  Haupt  (Leipzic,  1839,  2nd  edit. 
1871).  Translated  by  Fistes.  For  the  original,  Bekker,  Zs.  x,  373.  See 
Bartsch,  Germ,  vii,  141. — 1  IweinJ  edited  by  Benecke  und  Lachmann  (Berl. 
1827,  2nd  edit.  1843,  &c).  Translated  by  Count  Baudissin.  Original  (?),  Li 
romans  dou  chevalier  au  lyon,  edited  by  Holland  t  Hanover,  1862).  See  Rauch, 
Die  wiilische,  franzosische,  and  deutsche  Bearbeitung  der  Iweinsage  (Berl.  18691 ; 
Cnith,  Herrigs  Archiv  46  (18701,  251.  Settegast,  Hartmann  s  Iwein  verglichen 
mit  seiner  altfranzosichen  Quelle  (Marburg,  1873)  ;  Gartner,  Der  Iwein  Hart¬ 
manns  von  Aue,  u:  d  der  Chevalier  au  lion  des  Chrestien  de  Troies  (Breslau, 
1875);  Blume,  Uber  den  Iwein  (Vienna,  1879).  Hcinzel,  Osterreichische 
Wochenschrift,  new  series  ii,  385,  427,  460,  469  seq. 

For  the  characteristics  of  the  Arthur  romances ,  see  Uhland,  Schriften  ii, 
1 12-127.  Edition  of  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth,  by  Giles  (London,  1844),  by 
San-Marte  (Halle,  1854). 

For  the  development  of  the  epic  style  from  the  tenth  to  the  thirteenth  cen¬ 
tury,  see  W.  Grimm,  Kleine  Schriften  iii,  241  seq.  Lichtenstein,  Q.  F.  xix, 

1 50  seq. 

Gottfried  von  Strassburg.  Pub.  by  E.  von  Groote  (Berlin,  1821),  v.  d. 
Hagen  (Breslau,  1823),  Massmann  (Leipz.  1843I,  Bechstein  (Leipz.  1869). 
Translated  by  Simrock,  Kurtz,  but  best  by  Wilhelm  Hertz  (Stuttg.  1877).  On 
the  originals,  Bossert,  Tristan  et  Iseult  (Paris,  1865);  Heinzel,  Zs.  xiv,  272  ; 
compare  Zs.  xxvi  Anz.  21 1  seq.  It  was  nearly  connected  with  the  English  Sir 
Tristrem,  and  a  northern  Saga,  both  published  by  E.  Kolbing,  Die  nordische 
und  die  englische  Version  der  Tristan  Saga,  2  vols.  1  Heilbronn,  1878, 1883). — 
Gottfried’s  characteristics;  Heinzel,  Zs.  fur  osterreichische  Gymnasien,  1868, 
p.  533  :  Preuss,  Strassburger  Studien  i,  1-75.  For  his  life,  K.  Schmidt,  1st  G. 
v.  S.  Strassburger  Stadtschreiber  gevvesen  ?  (Strassb.  1876). — Bergemann,  Das 
hbfische  Leben  nach  G.  v.  S.  (Berl.  1876);  Lobedanz,  Das  franzosische  Element 
in  G.  v.  S.’s  Tiistan  (Schwerin,  1878). 


Bibliography. 


3.  Wolfram  von  Eschenbach ,  pp.  161-176. 

His  works  were  published  by  Lachmann  (Berl.  1883).  Parzival  ai?d  Titurel ’, 
Bartsch,  3  vols.  (Leipz  1870-71).  Parzival  translated  by  Simrock  and  San- 
Marte.  See  too,  San-Marte  1  Leben  und  Dichten  W.  von  E.’  (Magdeburg, 
1836,41),  and  his  ‘  Parzival-Studien,’  3  parts  (Halle,  i860,  62).  Domanig, 
‘  Parzival  Studien,’  2  parts  (Paderbom,  1878,80). — Biographical:  Schmeller, 
Abhandlungen  der  Miinchener  Akademie,  1837  >  Frommann,  Anzeiger  fur  Kunde 
der  deutschen  Vorzeit,  1861,  p.  355  ;  Haupt,  Zs.  vi,  187  ;  xi,  42.  For  the  date 
of  the  works,  Herforth,  Zs.  xviii,  281.  Wolfram’s  Style:  Janicke,  De  dicendi 
usu  Wolframi  de  E.  (Halle,  i860)  ;  Kinzel,  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil,  v,  1  ;  Forster,  Zur 
Sprache  and  Poesie  W.  von  E.  (Leipzic,  1874):  Botticher,  Germ,  xxi,  237. 
Kant,  Scherz  und  Humor  in  W.  von  E.  Dichtungen  (Heilbronn,  1878).  Stein- 
meyer  in  the  A.  D.  B  vi,  340.— Karl  Reichel,  Studien  zu  Wolfram’s  Parzival 
(Vienna,  1858).  On  the  Legend  of  the  Graal,  and  Wolfram’s  authorities: 
Bartsch,  Germanische  Studien  ii,  2  14  ;  Zarncke,  Beitr.  iii,  304  ;  Birch-Hirschfeld, 
Die  Sage  vom  Gral  (Leipz.  1877);  Martin,  Zur  Gralsage,  Q.F.  42  (Strass. 
1880) ;  W.  Hertz,  Die  Sage  vom  Parzival  und  dem  Gral  (Breslau,  1882).  For 
Willehalm  ;  Jonckbloet,  Guillaume  d’Orange  (Amsterdam,  1867).  Compared 
with  Wolfram  by  San-Marte,  Uber  W.  von  E.  Rittergedicht  Wilhelm  von 
Orange  (Quedlinburg,  1871). 

On  the  Tagclied  see  Bartsch,  Gesammelte  Vortrage  und  Aufsatze  (Frei¬ 
burg,  1883),  p.  250  seq.  Sch.,  Deutsche  Studien  ii,  51-60.  Johannes  Schmidt, 
Zs.  f.  d.  Phil,  xii,  333. 

4.  Successors  of  the  Great  Chivalrous  Poets ,  pp.  176-186. 

Epics  after  a  foreign  original.  The  *  Lanzelet ,*  of  Ulrich  von  Zelzikon, 
edited  by  Hahn  (Franf.  1845)  ;  original  proofs,  Bachtold,  Germania,  xix,  424  ; 
see  Schilling  De  dicendi  usu  U.  de  Z.  (Halle,  1866). — Konrad  von  Fusses- 
brunnen,  edited  by  Kochendorffer,  Q.F.  43. —  Wirent  von  Grafenberg  (comp, 
p.  71),  edited  by  Benecke  (Berl.  1819),  Peiffer  (Leipz.  1847);  Bethge,  W.  von 
G.  (Berl.  1881),  where  the  other  authorities  are  given.  —Strieker,  1  Daniel,'  see 
Strieker’s  Charlemagne,  edited  by  Bartsch,  Preface. — Konrad  Fleck,  ed.  Som¬ 
mer  (Quedlinburg,  1846)  ;  see  Sundmacher,  Die  altfranzosische  and  mittelhoch- 
deutsche  Bearbeitung  der  Sage  von  Flore  und  Blancheflur  (Gottingen,  1882)  ; 
Herzog,  Germ.  29,  137  —Heinrich  von  dem  Purlin,  edited  by  Scholl  (Stuttg. 
1852),  see  Reissenberger,  Zur  Krone  (Gratz,  1879)  >  Warnatsch,  Der  Mantel 
(Breslau,  188  ;  ;  Weinholds  Germanist.  Abh.  2). 

Freshly  invented  Epics :  the  ‘  Garel  vom  bliihenden  Thai,’  by  Pleier  ex¬ 
amined  by  Waltz  (Vienna,  1881).  Characteristics  of  the  poet:  E.  Ii.  Meyer, 
Zs.  xii,  470 .—  Wigamur,  the  Knight  with  the  Eagle;  Sarrazin,  Q.F.  35  — 
«  Gauricl  von  Montaveg  the  Knight  with  the  Goat,  by  Konrad  von  Stoffeln ; 
Jeitteles,  Germania,  vi,  385.— Apollonius  of  Tyre,  see  Strobl,  Heinrich  von 
Neustadt  (Vienna,  1875). 

Realistic  Epics  :  see  Rudolf  von  Ems,  c  Wilhelm  von  Orlens.’ 

Rhymed  Chronicles-.  The  Styrian  of  Ottokar,  as  yet  only  published  in  Pec, 


Chapter  VI. 


Scriptores  reruin  austriacarum.  iii.  See  Schacht,  Aus  und  iiber  Ottokars  von 
Horneck  Reimchronik  (Mainz,  1821);  Theod.  Jacobi,  De  Ottokar  chionico 
auslriaco  (Breslau,  1839);  Lortnz,  Deutschlar.ds  Geschichtsquellen,  3rd  edit, 
i,  242. 

Continuations  of  Wolfram' s  and  Gottfried's  works :  Ulrich  von  Tiirheim 
(1233-66),  continued  Gottfried’s  ‘  Tristan,’  (see  von  der  Hagen  und  Massmann’s 
edition),  and  Wolfram’s  ‘  Willehalm  ’  (for  the  sources  of  the  latter  see  Suchier, 
tjber  die  Quelle  U.  v.  d.  T.  p.  32). —  Ulrich  von  dem  Purlin  added  the  in¬ 
troductory  history  of  ‘Willehalm’  between  1261  and  1275;  Suchier,  IJber 
die  Quelle  U.  v.  d.  T.  (Paderborn,  1873). — Heinrich  von  Freiberg  (Toischer, 
Mittheilungen  des  Vereins  fur  Geschichte  der  Deutschen  in  Bohmen,  xv,  149) 
coniinued  ‘  Tristan’  about  1300,  ed.  Bechstein  (Leipz.  1 8 77)- 

Rudolf  von  Ems  :  ‘Der  gute  Gerhard,’  ed.  Haupt  (Leipzic,  1840).  '  Barlaam 

and  Josaphat,’  ed  Pfeiffer  (Leipz.,  1843)  ;  on  the  subject-matter,  see  Liebrecht 
in  Eberts  Jahrbuch  ii.  314 — Wilhelm  von  Orlens,  table  of  Contents,  Mones’ 
Anz.  1835,  p.  27.  'Alexander'  never  printed.  'Universal  Chronicle ' :  Vilmar, 
Die  zwei  Recensionen  und  die  Handschriftenfamilien  der  Weltchronik  R.  von 
E.  (Marburg,  1839k 

Konrad  von  Wurzburg.  ‘  Der  Welt  Lohn’  (p.  72),  ed  Roth  (Frankf.,  1843). 
‘Otto  mit  dem  Bart,’  ed.  Hahn  (Quedlinburg,  1838)  ;  ‘  Schwanritter,’  ed.  Roth 
(Frankf.,  1861);  ‘Engelhard,’  ed.  Haupt  (Leipz.  18-14).  French  legend, 
Iierzmare,  ed.  Roth  (Frankf.  1846). — Legends :  ‘Alexius,’ ed  Haupt,  Zs.  iii. 
534;  ‘Pantaleon,’  ed.  Haupt,  Zs.  vi.  193;  ‘Silvester,’  ed.  W.  Grimm  (Gottin¬ 
gen,  1841) — ‘  Goldene  Schmiede,’  ed.  W.  Grimm  (Berl.  1840);  ‘  Partonopier 
und  Meliur,’  ed.  Bartsch  (Vienna,  1871) — ‘  Trojanerkrieg,’  ed.  Roth,  Keller, 
Bartsch  (Stuttg.  Litter. -Verein,  1858,  77). — ‘  Klage  der  Kunst  ’  ed.  Eugen 
Joseph  Q.  F.  liii.  (Strassburg,  1855). 

The  disciples  of  Wolfram  von  Eschenbach  :  a  M.  S.  of  the  later  Titurel 
was  printed  in  1477,  and  another  by  Hahn  (Quedlinburg,  1842),  the  description 
of  the  Grail-castle  was  published  by  Zarncke  (Der  Graltempel,  Leipz.,  1876). 
The  author  is  not  Albrecht  von  ScJiarfenberg\  from  a  later  poet  of  this  name 
we  possess  a  ‘Merlin’  and  a  ‘  Seifrid  de  Ardemont  ’  in  Ulrich  Fiilrers 
Epitome;  see  Spilier,  Zs.  xxvii.  158.  ‘Lohengrin,’  ed.  H.  Riickert  (Qued¬ 
linburg,  1858)  :  ‘Lorengel,’  ed.  Steinmeyer,  Zs.  xv.  181  —  Hadamar  von  Laber , 
ed.  Stejskal  (Vienna,  1S80). — *  Der  heilige  Georg,’  written  by  Reinbot  von 
Durne ,  by  wish  of  Otto  II.  of  Bavaria  (1231-53),  ed.  v.  d.  Hagen  and  Bii- 
sching,  Deutsche  Gedichte  des  Mittelalters  d8o8). 

Clerical  Poetry.  Hugo  von  Langenstein  ‘Martina,’  ed.  Keller  (Stuttg.,  1856) ; 
see  Kohler,  Germ.  viii.  15. — Collections  of  Legends  :  —  ‘  Passional  ’  (ed.  Hahn, 
Frankf,  1845:  ‘  Marienlegendtn,’  by  Pfeiffer.  Stuttg.,  1846,  the  third  part, 
ed.  Kopke,  Quedlinburg,  1852,  and  ‘  Der  Vater  Buch  ’  (ed.  Franke,  Paderborn, 
begun  1S80,  see  Zs.  25.  Ar.z.  164  ;  J.  Haupt,  Sitzungsberichte  der  Wiener  Akad. 
69,  71). —  ‘Elizabeth,’  ed.  Rieger,  (Stuttg.  1868),  and  ‘Erlosung’  ed.  Bartsch, 
(Quedlinburg,  1858). — ‘  Maricn  Himmelfahrt,’  Zs.  v,  515 — Legendary  poetry 
in  Cologne.  Brother  Herman  s  ‘Iolante’  (specimens  in  Pfeiffers  Ubungsbuch, 
p.  103). — Bruno  von  Schonebeck ,  see  Chroniken  der  deutschen  Stadte,  viii, 
168  ;  Graters  Bragur,  ii.  324 — Literary  activity  of  the  Knights  of  the  German 


366  Bibliography . 

Orders  in  Prussia ;  see  Pfeiffer,  Jeroschin  p.  xxiv.  et  seq. ;  Zacher,  Zs.  xiii. 

5  "4* 

Middle  High-German  Artistic  Epics :  Nicolas  von  Jeroschin ,  ed.  Pfeiffer 
(Stuttg.  1854,  only  extracts);  Strehlke  in  the  Scriptores  rerum  prussicarum,  i. 
291 — Henry  of  Munich',  see  Wackernagel,  p.  223  —Seifried's  1  Alexandreis  ’ 
finished  1352  :  Ferd.  Wolf,  Wiener  Jahrbucher  57,  Anzeigeblatt  pp.  19-24 
Karajan  Zs.  iv.  248. 


VII.  Poets  and  Preachers,  pp.  187-234. 

The  ‘  Wartburgkriegl  ed.  Simrock  (Stuttgart,  1858.) 

Rise  of  the  Minnesang :  Lachmann  and  Haupt,  Des  Minnesangs  Friihling 
(Leipz.  1857  and  later);  see  Sch.,  Deutsche  Studien  ii.  (Vienna,  1874).  We 
must  distinguish  between  three  groups:  I.  The  Austro- Bavarian,  nearly  con¬ 
nected  with  the  popular  German  Lyrics,  mentioned  on  pp.  194-196,  see  Minne¬ 
sangs  Friihling  Nos.  1,  2,  4,  and  p.  37,  4-29.  Dietmar  von  Aist,  ibid.  No  7. 
See  Burdach,  Zs.  xxvii.  343;  Anz.  x  13;  Becker.  Germ.  xxix.  360. — 2  The 
Lower  Rhe?iish,  chiefly  influenced  by  northern  French  models:  Veldeke,  who 
founded  a  school  in  Thuringia. — 3.  The  Upper  Rhenish ,  connected  with  the 
Troubadours  :  Hausen  and  Reinmar ;  the  latter  came  to  Austria,  and  pro¬ 
pagated  there  his  own  mode  of  composition. 

1.  Walther  von  der  Vogelweide ,  pp.  189-201. 

Ed.  Lachmann  (Berl.  1827  and  later) ;  Wackernagel  and  Rieger  (Giessen,  1862); 
Pfeiffer  (Leipz.  1864  and  later)  ;  Wilmanns  (Halle,  1869,  1883)  ;  Simrock  (Bonn, 
1870).  Translated  by  Simrock  (Berl.  1833  and  later),  Koch,Weiske,  and  Pannier. 
See  Uhland,  Walther  v.  d.  V.  (Stuttg.,  1822,  also  Schriften,  v.  1)  ;  Rieger,  Leben 
W.  v.  d.  V.  (Giessen,  1863)  ;  Menzel,  Leben  W.  v.  d.  V.  (Leipz.,  1865)  ;  Lucae, 
Leben  und  Dichten  W.  v.  d.  V.  (Halle,  1867)  :  Lexer,  Uber  W.  v.  d.  V.  (Wurz¬ 
burg,  1873)  ;  Burdach,  Reinmar  der  Alte  und  W.  v.  d.  V.  (Leipz.,  1880)  ;  Wil¬ 
manns.  Leben  und  Dichten  W.  v.  d.  V.  (Bonn,  1882)— For  p.  189,  see  Ignaz  V. 
Zingerle,  Reiserechnungen  Wolfgers  von  Ellenbrechtskirchen,  Bischofs  von 
Passau,  Patriarchen  von  Aquileja  (Heilbronn,  1877)  p.  9,  14  ;  and  also  Kal- 
koff,  Wolfger  von  Passau,  1191-1204  (Weimar,  188 1).—  Further  accounts 
in  Leo,  Die  gesammte  Litteratur  W.  v.  d.  V.  (Vienna,  1880). 

The  older  poet  of  unknown  name,  mentioned  p.  191,  and  again  p.  217,  goes 
by  the  name  of  Anonymous  SpervogeT,  some  think  his  name  was  Heriger\ 
Minnesangs  Friihling,  No.  6  ;  Sch.,  Deutsche  Studien  i.  (Vienna,  1870). 

2.  Minnesang  and  Meistersang ,  pp.  201-212. 

Jacob  Grimm  has  proved  that  the  Meistersang  is  only  a  continuation, 
though  in  the  end  a  very  lifeless  one,  of  the  Minnesang;  Uber  den  altdeut- 
schen  Meistergesang  (Gottingen,  1811) — The  MS.  C  (p.  201)  is  the  one  errone¬ 
ously  called  ‘  Manessische  ’  and  it  is  the  authority  used  by  von  der  Hagen 
for  his  ‘  Minnesinger,’  Part  iv.  (Leipz.,  18. ,8).  Another  illuminated  MS.  is 
the  Weingartner,  B,  printed  by  Pfeiffer  (Stuttg.,  1843).  B  and  C,  are  founded 


Chapter  VII. 


on  an  illuminated  MS.  of  the  thirteenth  century.  The  Heidelberg  MS.  A, 
printed  (Stuttg.  1844)  — Selection  :  Bartsch,  Deutsche  Liederdichter,  2nd  ed. 
Stuttg.,  1879).  Translation,  Simrock,  Lieder  der  Minnesinger  (Elberfeld, 
1857).  See  Uhland,  Der  Minnesang.  Schriften  v.  1 11-282. 

Ulrich  von  Lichtenstein,  ed.  Lachmann  (Berl.  1841)  ;  see  Knorr  Q.  F.  ix.  Sch., 
Zs.  Anz.  i.  248  :  Schonbach,  Zs.  xxvi.  707.  -  Reinmar  von  Zzveter ,  ed.  Rothe 
(Leipz.,  1887),  see  Wilmanns  Zs.  xiii.  434. — Neidhart  von  Reuenthal,  ed.  M. 
Haupt  (Leipz.,  1858)  see  Liliencron  Zs.  vi.  69  ;  Tischer,  Uber  Neidhart  von 
Reuenthal  (Leipz.,  1872) :  Schmolke,  Leben  und  Dichten  N.  von  R. 
(Potsdam,  1875);  Richard  Meyer,  Chronologie  der  Gedichte  N.  von  R. 
(Berl,  1883) — Tannhauser  in  v.  d.  Hagen,  No.  90. — Bur  hard  von  Hohcnf els 
v.  d.  Hagen,  No.  38. — Gottfried  von  Neifezi,  ed.  M.  Haupt  (Leipz.  1851),  see 
Knod,  G  von  N.  und  seine  Lieder  (Tubingen,  1877). — Steimar,\.  d.  Hagen, 
No.  103 ;  Werner  von  Jlomberg,  ibid.  No.  19 ;  King  Wenzel,  Otto  of 
Brandenburg,  Henry  of  Breslau ,  ibid,  Nos.  4-6  :  on  Henry  of  Breslau,  see 
H.  Riickert,  Kleine  Schriften  i.  211 ;  Wizlau,  ed.  Ettmiiller  (Quedlinbmg,  1852) 

For  the  culture  of  the  Meistersingers ,  see  Liliencron,  Uber  den  Inhalt 
der  allgemeinen  Bildung  in  der  Zeit  der  Scholastik  (Munich,  1876);  Jacobs- 
thal,  Die  musikalische  Bildung  der  Meistersinger,  Zs.  xx  69. — Marner,  ed. 
Strauch,  Q.  F.  xiv. — Frazienlob,  ed.,  Ettmiiller  (Quedlinburg,  1843).  Regen- 
bogen,  see  v.  d.  Hagen,  No.  126.  The  wild  Alexander,  ibid.  No.  13 Johann 
Hadlaub,  ed.  Ettmiiller  (Zurich,  1841). 

3.  Didactic  Poetry ,  Satire  and  Tales ,  pp.  212-222. 

Didactic  poetry',  the  Winsbeke,  ed  M.  Plaupt  (Leipz.,  1845);  see  too, 
Zs.  xv.  261. — ‘  Mdssigung ;  ’  diu  Maze,  ed.  Bartsch,  Germ.  viii.  97. — The 
Wild  Man :  Wernher  von  Niederrhein ,  pub.  by  W.  Grimm  (Gottingen, 
1839)  :  see  too,  Pfeiffer,  Germ.  i.  223.  Werner  von  Elmendorf '  Zs.  iv.  284,  see 
xxvi.  87,  Q.  F.  xii.  124 — Thomasin  of  Zirclaria,  ed.  H.  Riickert  (Quedlinburg, 
1852)  :  see  Zs.  f  d.  Phil.  ii.  431. — Freidank,  ed.  W.  Grimm  (Gottingen,  1834, 
i860);  Bezzenberger  (Halle,  1872).  See  W.  Grimm,  Kleine  Schriften,  iv.  ; 
Paul,  Uber  die  urspriingliche  Anordnung  von  Freidank’s  Bescheidenheit, 
(Leipz.  1870). — Hugo  von  Trimberg  Bamberg,  1833,  Zs.  xxviii.  145 .—Jacobus 
a  Cessolis ;  the  original,  ed  Kopke  (Brandenburg,  1879  Progr.).  For  the  trans¬ 
lations,  see  Zimmermann,  Das  Schachgedicht  Heinrichs  von  Berngen  (Wolfen- 
biittel,  1875),  p.  7. —  Ulrich  Boner ,  ed.  Benecke  (Berl.,  1816),  Pfeiffer,  (Leipz., 
1844);  see  Zs.f.  d.  Phil.  xi.  324 

Tales  and  Satires.  Collections  of  Middle  High  German  Tales:  v  d.  Hagen, 
Gesammtabenteuer,  3  vols.  (Stuttg.,  1850) :  Mailath  und  Koffinger,  Kolo- 
czaer  Codex  altdeutscher  Gedichte,  (Pesth,  1817);  Lassberg,  Liedersaal,  3  vols. 
(St.  Gall  and  Constance,  1846)  ;  Keller,  Altdeutsche  Gedichte  (Tiibingen,  1846) ; 
Erzahlungen  aus  altdeutschen  Handschriften  (Stuttg.,  1855).  A  selection : 
Lambel,  Erzahlungen  and  Schvvanke  (Leipz.,  1872).  On  the  Eastern  origin  of 
many  of  the  European  Tales  and  Fables,  see  Loiseleur  Delongchamps,  Essai 
sur  les  fables  indiennes  et  leur  introduction  en  Europe,  (Paris,  1838).  Benfey, 
Panchatantra  (Leipz.,  1859). 


368 


Bibliography. 


Strieker.  Smaller  poems  published  by  Hahn  (Quedlinburg,  1839);  on  the 
decline  of  poetry  in  Austria,  Hagen’s  Germania,  ii,  82;  on  the  Gauhiihner 
(Pfeiffef,  Germ,  vi,  457);  the  ‘Priest  Amis’  in  Lambel,  No.  1. — The  so-called 
Seifried  Helbli7ig,  Ed.  Karajan  (Zs.  iv,  1)  ;  see  Martin,  Zs.  xiii,  464:  Seemuller, 
Wiener  Sitzungsberichte,  102,  567. — ‘  Meier  Helmbrecht,’  by  PVerner  der  Gart¬ 
ner  in  Lambel,  No.  3. — ‘  The  bad  wife.'  ed.  M.  Haupt  (Leipz  1871). — Enen- 
kel,  really,  hern  Jansen  enlcel  (see  Sch.  in  Litterarisches  Centralblatt,  186S, 
Sp.  978).  His  ‘  Eiirstenbuch,’  ed.  Megiser,  1618  (new  ed.  1740),  from  the 
‘  Weltchronik,’  extracts  in  v.  d.  Hagen,  Gesammtabenteuer.  —The  ‘  Wiener 
Mecrfahrt'  in  Lambel,  No.  5. — The  ‘  Weinschwelgi  Grimm,  Altdeutsche 
Walder,  iii,  13;  Germ,  iii,  210. 

4.  The  Mendicant  Orders ,  pp.  222-234. 

The  date  given  for  the  ‘  SachsenspiegeT  is  only  approximate.  Like  is  men¬ 
tioned  in  documents  of  1209  to  1233.  Ed.  Homeyer  ;  First  Part  (3rd  ed  , 
Berlin,  1861)  ;  Second  Part,  2  vols.  (Berl.  1842-44).  The  date  of  the  ‘  Schwa- 
benspiegel'  is  given  by  Picker,  Wiener  Sitzungsberichte,  77,  795.  Ed.  Wacker- 
nagel  (Zurich,  1840)  ;  von  Lassberg  (Tubingen,  1840);  one  in  preparation  by 
Rockinger. 

On  the  economic  revolution  in  the  thirteenth  century,  see  Schmoller,  Q.F.  6 
(Strasb.  1874). 

On  the  Heretics.  Zs.  ix  63,  65.  Preger,  Der  Tractat  des  David  von  Augsburg 
iiber  die  Waldesier  (Munich,  1878,  Abh.  der  bayr.  Akad.),  p  7,  39. — The  story 
of  the  abbot,  who  woke  his  monks  by  naming  King  Arthur,  is  told  by  Casarius 
von  Heisterbach,  iv,  36.  See  A.  Kaufmann,  Casarius  von  Heisterbach  (Cologne, 
1850).  On  St  Gall ,  see  Wackernagel,  Verdienste  der  Schweizer  um  die 
deutsche  Litteratur  (Basle,  1833),  P-  J4-  The  hostility  of  the  Mendicant 
Orders  to  Chivalry,  Br.  Berthold,  ii,  670.  Ulrich  von  Lichtenstein  complains, 
601,  10  et  seq.  of  the  increasing  bigotry  amongst  women. 

Brother  Berthold  of  Regensbui'g  :  Ed.  Pfeiffer  und  Strobl,  2  vols.  (Vienna, 
1862,  80);  see  J.  Grimm,  Kleine  Scbriften,  iv,  296:  K.  Schmidt,  Theo- 
logische  Studien  and  lvritiken,  1864,  i,  1-82  ;  Strobl,  Wiener  Sitzungsberichte, 
84  ;  Jacob,  Die  lateinischen  Reden  des  seligen  Berthold  von  R.  (Regensburg, 
1880)  ;  Germ,  xxvi,  316:  Unkel,  Berthold  von  R.  (Cologne,  1882). 

The  Dominicans.  Albertns  Magnus ;  see  Pouchet,  Histoire  des  Sciences 
naturelles  au  M.A.  ou  Albert  le  Grand  et  son  epoque  (Paris,  1853)  ;  Sighart, 
Albertus  Magnus  (Regensburg,  1857)  ;  d’Assailly,  Albert  le  Grand  (Paris, 
1870);  also  Prantl,  Geschichte  der  Logik,  iii,  89;  Jessen,  Deutsche  Viertel- 
jahrsschrift,  121,  p.  269  ;  Cams,  Geschichte  der  Zoologie,  p.  223. — Konrad  von 
Megenbcrg ,  ed.  Pfeiffer  (Stuttgart,  1861). — Afystics,  Preger,  Geschichte  der 
deutschen  Mystik  im  Mittelalter,  i  (Leipz  1874),  ii  (1881).  Meister  Eckhart, 
ed.  Pfeiffer  (Deutsche  Mystiker,  vol.  2,  Leipz  1857).  Tauler ,  ed.  Hamberger 
(Frankfoit,  1864).  Suso,  ed.  Diepenbrock  (3rd  ed.,  Augsburg.  1854).  Denifle, 
vol.  1  (Munich,  1880). — Mathilde  of  Magdeburg :  Offenbarungen  der  Schwester 
Mechthild  von  M.,  ed.  P.  Gall  Morel  (Regensburg,  1869).  Her  followers,  see 
Strauch,  Q.F  26  ;  also  by  Strauch,  Margaretha  Ebner  und  Heinrich  von  Nord- 
lingen  (Freiburg,  1882). 


Chapters  VII- VIII. 


Opposition  to  the  Papal  pozuer :  see  Riezler,  Die  litterarischen  Widersacher 
der  Papste  (Leipz.  18741  ;  C.  Muller,  Der  Kampf  Ludwigs  des  Baiern  mit  der 
romischen  Curie,  2  vols.  (Tubingen,  1879-80). — German  Version  of  the  Sunday 
Epistles  and  Gospels,  see  I.  Haupt,  Wiener  Sitzungsberichte,  76,  53. —  On  Rul- 
mann ,  i.e.  Hieronymus,  Merswin,  see  ‘  Buch  von  den  neun  Felsen,’  ed.  K. 
Schmidt  (Leipz.  1859);  Schmidt,  Nicolaus  von  Basel  (Vienna,  1866)  ;  Nico¬ 
laus  von  Basel,  Bericht  von  der  Bekehrung  Taulers’,  ed.  Schmidt  (Strasb.  1875)  ; 
Denifle  Q.F.  36,  and  Zs.  xxiv,  200,  280,  463  ;  xxv,  101. 


VIII.  The  Close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  pp.  235-270. 

See  R.  Honiger,  Der  schwarze  Tod  in  Deutschland  (Berlin,  1882)  ;  Lechner, 
Das  grosse  Sterben  (Innsbruck,  1884).  Zache",  Article  on  the  Flagellants,  in 
Ersch  and  Gruber’s  Encyclopadie.  —  The  expression  ‘  Aristophanic  centuries’ 
is  adopted  from  Gervinus. —  On  the  discovery  of  printing,  see  van  der  Linde, 
Gutenberg  (Berlin,  1886).  The  German  printed  works  before  1500  are  given 
by  Panzer,  Annalen  der  alteren  deutschen  Litteratur  (Nuremberg,  1788)  ;  con¬ 
tinued  in  the  £  Zusatze,’  reaching  to  1520  (Leipz.  1802)  and  a  second  vol.,  which 
gives  the  German  woiks  published  between  1521  and  1526  (Nuremberg,  1805). 

1.  The  Drama ,  pp.  238-246. 

See  Wackernagel,  p.  390  et  seq.,  and  his  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Dramas  bis 
zum  Anfange  des  siebzehnten  Jahrhunderts,  Kleine  Schriften,  ii,  f'9.  Ilase, 
Das  geistliche  Schauspiel  *  Leipz.  1858)  Reidt.  Das  geistliche  Schauspiel  des 
Mittelalters  in  Deutschland  (Frankf.  1868).  Wilkin,  Geschichte  der  geistlichen 
Spiele  in  Deutschland  ^Gottingen,  1872).  On  the  comic  element  in  the  old 
German  plays,  see  Weinhold  in  Gosches  Jahrbuch  fiir  Litteratur-Geschichte 
(Berlin,  1865),  1  et  seq. —  Collections:  Hoffmann,  Fundgruben  ii,  260;  Mone, 
Altteiitche  Schauspiele  (Quedlinburg,  1841);  Schauspiele  des  Mittelalters,  2 
vols.  (Karlsruhe,  1846');  Pichler,  Uber  das  Drama  des  Mittelalters  in  Tiiol 
(Innsbruck,  1850);  Kummer,  Erlauer  Spiele  (Vienna,  1882).  Chiefly,  but  not 
entirely  comic  plays:  Keller,  Fastnachtspiele  aus  dem  fiinfzehnten  Jahrhundert, 
3  vols.  (Stuttg.  1853),  with  a  continuation,  ‘Nachlese’  (Stuttg.  1858).  We 
may  at  once  mention  here:  Rein,  Vier  geistliche  Spiele  des  17  Jahrhunderts 
fiir  Charfreitag  und  Fronleichnamsfest  (Crefeld,  1853)  ;  A.  Hartmann,  Volks- 
schauspiele  in  Bayern  und  Osterreich-Ungarn  gesammelt  (Leipz.  1880). 

Stage  and  Scenery  :  Leibing,  Die  Inscenirung  des  zweitagigen  Luzemer  Os- 
terspieles  vom  Jahre  1583,  durch  Renwnrt  Cysat  (Elberfeld,  1869) ;  Lepsius 
und  Traube,  Schauspiel  und  Biihne,  i  (Munich,  1880),  49  (comp,  ii,  15). 

Dramatic  varieties-.  For  the  French  terminology  which  I  have  applied  to 
German  plays  see  Ebert,  Zur  Entwickelungsgeschichte  der  franzodschen  Tra- 
godie  (Gojha,  1856).  Mone  has  drawn  attention  to  the  influence  of  the 
French  Drama  (see  Schauspiele  des  Mittelalters,  ‘  Franzosisches  Schauspiel,’  in 
the  Index') ;  Martin,  Zs.  xxvi,  Anz.  31 1,  gives  a  striking  proof.  See  too,  Keller, 
p.  1516,  1517, 

1.  Mysteries ,  or  Miracle  Plays.  Besides  the  plays  for  Church  Festivals 

VOL.  II.  B  b 


370  Bibliography. 

from  the  New  Test,  we  have  Old  Test,  stories,  Legends,  and  Tales,  (a)  Christ¬ 
mas  riays  :  R.  Weinhold,  Weihnacht-Spiele  und  -Lieder  aus  Siiddeutschland 
and  Sdhlesien  (Gratz,  1853)  ;  Lexer,  Karntisches  Worterbuch  (Leipz.  1862), 
p.  269  et  seq.  ;  Schroer,  Deutsche  Weihnachtspiele  aus  Ungarn  (Vienna,  1858)  ; 
A.  Hartmann,  Weihnachtlied  und  Weibnachtspiel  in  Oberbayern  (Munich, 

1 875,  Oberbayerisches  Archiv,  vol.  34) ;  Pailler,  Weihnachtlieder  und  Krip- 
penspiele  aus  Oberosterreich  und  Tirol,  vol.  1  (Innspruck,  1881).  Carmina 
Burana,  p.  81  ;  Hagen's  Germ,  vii,  349;  Piderit,  Ein  Weihnachtspiel  (Par- 
chim,  1869). — (b)  Passion  and  Easter  plays :  Carm.  Bur.  p.  9; ;  Germ,  viii,  273  ; 
Wagner's  Archiv  fur  die  Geschichte  deutscher  Sprache  und  Dichtung,  i,  355  ; 
Fichard,  Frankfurtisches  Archiv.  iii,  1 3 1  ;  Alsfelder  Passionsspiel.  ed.  Grein 
(Cassel,  1874)  ;  Fried berger,  Zs.  vii,  545  ;  The  Augsburg  play  in  A.  Hartmann, 
Das  Oberammergauer  Passionspiel  in  seiner  liltesten  Gestalt  (Leipz  1880); 
the  Heidelberg  play,  ed.  Milchsack  (Tubingen,  1880)  ;  the  Freiburg  play, 
ed.  Maitin  (Freiburg,  1872,  Zeitschrift  der  histor.  Gesellsch.  zu  Freiburg,  vol. 
3)  ;  the  Redentin  play,  ed.  Ettmiiller,  ‘  Dat  spil  fan  der  upstandinge,  gedichtet 
1464  ’  (Quedlinburg,  183 t).  The  Passion  play  in  St.  Stephen’s  in  Vienna,  ed.  Ca- 
mesina,  Mittheilungen  iiber  die  altere  Feier  des  Charfreitags  in  der  St.  Stephans- 
kirche  (Vienna,  1869).  See  Grieshaber,  Uber  die  Ostersequenz  Victimae  pas- 
chali  und  deren  Beziehung  zu  den  religiosen  Schauspielen  des  Mittelalters 
(Carlsruhe,  1844)  ;  Milchsack,  Die  Oster  und  Passionspiele,  i  (Wolfenbiittel, 

1880) ;  Zs.  xxv,  251. —  Schonbach,  Uber  die  Marienklagen  (Gratz,  1874). — (Q 
Corpus  Christi plays.  The  Eger  Fronleichnamspiel,  ed.  Milchsack  (Tubingen, 

1881)  ;  The  Kiinzeisau  Germ,  iv,  338 .  —  (d)  Old  Testament  plays.  The  Fall,  by 
Arnold  von  Immessen,  ed.  Schonemann,  Der  Sundenfall  und  Marienklage 
(Hanover,  1855);  Joseph  in  Egypt  (about  A.D.  1265;  Fundgruben  ii,  242); 
Judgment  of  Solomon,  Schnorr’s  Archiv  iii,  13;  Susanna,  Keller,  Fastn. 
Nachl.  No.  129;  Germ,  xxii,  342. — ( e )  Legends.  Assumption  of  the  Virgin, 
Mone,  Altt.  Schausp.  21  ;  Invention  of  the  Cross,  Keller’s  Nachlese,  No.  125  ; 
St  Dorothea,  Fundgruben,  ii,  284  :  St.  Catharine,  in  Stephan,  Neue  Stofflie- 
ferungen  fur  die  deutsche  Geschichte  (Miihlhausen,  1847),  ii,  149;  St.  George 
(Germ,  i,  1 7 1 ;  Keller,  Nachlese,  No.  126) ;  Theophilus,  ed.  Ettmiiller  (Qued¬ 
linburg,  1849).  Hoffmann  (from  a  Treves  MS.,  Hanover,  1853,  from  a  Stock¬ 
holm  and  Helmstadt  MS.,  Hanover,  1854)  >  see  too>  Sass,  Uber  das  Verhaltnis 
der  Recensionen  des  niederdeutschen  Spiels  von  Theophilus  (Elmshorn,  1879)  > 
see  too,  Sommer  DeTheophili  cum  diabolo  foedere  (Halle,  1844). — ( f)  History 
and  Myths.  The  Judgment  of  Paris,  Schnorr’s  Archiv  iii,  5,  17.  Pope  Joan, 

‘  Spiel  von  Frau  Jutten,’  Keller,  No.  iii. 

2.  Mor allies  and  Didactic  plays. — (a)  New  Testament  Parables.  The  play 
of  the  Wise  and  Foolish  Virgins,  ed.  Stephan,  Stofflieferungen,  ii,  173,  (L. 

Bechstein,  WartburgRibliothek,  i,  Halle,  1855)  ;  Rieger,  Germ,  x,  311  ;  trans¬ 
lation  by  Frey  be  (Leipz.  1870)  ;  see  R.  Beckstein,  Das  Spiel  von  den  zehn  Jung- 
frauen  (Rostock,  1872).  The  fragments  of  a  play  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus, 
in  the  Spiegelbuch,  ed.  Rieger,  Germ,  xvi,  173.  ( b )  Disputatio7is.  Keller, 

No.  1,  1 21;  comp.  106  (r)  Allegorical  Plays,  namely,  those  in  which  alle¬ 

gories  and  personifications  appear,  as  Shrovetide,  Keller,  No.  51 ;  the  time  after 
Easter  (‘  Meister  Reuaus,’  Wagner’s  Archiv  i,  13,  95,  227)  ;  colours,  Keller, 


Chapter  VIII. 


37i 


No.  103;  an  illness,  No.  54;  or  death.  Dances  of  Death',  see  Wackernagel, 
Kleine  Schriften,  i,  302  ;  Massmann,  Easeler  Todtentanze  (Stuttg.  1847)  ; 
Rieger,  Germ,  xix,  257  ;  Schroer,  Germ,  xii,  204.  Liibeck  Dance  of  Death, 
ed.  Mantels  (Liibeck,  1866),  Bathcke  (Berl.  1873,  Tlib.  1876)  ;  Berlin 
(Liibke),  Der  Todtentanz  in  der  Marienkirche  zu  Berlin  (Berl.  1861)  ;  Jahrbuch 
des  Vereins  fur  niederdeutsche  Sprachforschung,  1877,  p.  178;  1878,  p.  105). 

( d )  Dra7?ialic  examples.  I  know  no  better  name  for  those  moralities  where 
figures  appear,  which,  like  the  Sinner  in  the  Spiegelbuch  (Germ,  xvi,  173; 
Keller,  No.  131),  are  representatives  of  their  class;  sometimes  they  may  be 
compared  wuth  the  Satires  on  all  classes,  and  have  been  derived  from  them  :  see 
below,  ‘  Great  towms,’  Reval  and  Basle. 

3.  Farces ,  or  burlesques.  The  documents  are  easily  found  in  Keller’s  Fast- 
nachtspielen  ;  see  too,  Schnorr’s  Archiviii,  2  ;  Germ,  xxii,  420.  Compare  Kurz, 
Geschichte  der  deutschen  Litteratur,  5th  Ed  i,  71 1,  730. 

4.  Sollies,  or  clown  plays.  Here  too,  Keller’s  collection  is  the  best  authority. 

Great  Tozuns  as  fostering  places.  Liibeck ,  Jahrbuch  fur  niederdeutsche 

Sprachforschungen,  1 880-1,  31  (eine  Moralitat,  Jahrbuch,  1877,  P-  9>  see 
1879,  p.  173;  shorter  form  i.i  Germ,  xviii,  460).  Reval,  Wagner’s  Archiv  i, 
494;  Basle,  Pamphilus  Gengenbach,  pub.  by  Godeke  (Hanover,  1856),  see 
Wagner's  Archiv  i,  494. — Nitremberg,  for  Rosenblut  see  Wendeler,  Wagner’s 
Archiv.  i,  97,  385;  for  Folz,  Godeke,  Germ,  xv,  197;  Lochner,  Schnorr’s 
Archiv  iii,  324. 

Roman  drama  revived.  See  Godeke,  §  113,  1  ~i6,  Schnorr’s  Archiv  vii, 
157;  xi.  328.  Macropedms  (Godeke,  §  113,  21)  confesses  himself  influenced 
by  Reuchlin.  Chilianus  Eques  (Reuter)  Mellerstatinus  (ibid.  6)  appeals  to  the 
example  of  ‘Rosphita;’  which  confirms  Wackernagel’s  remark,  Litteratur- 
geschichte,  p.  405,  Anm.  22.  For  Reuchlin s  1  Henno,’  see  Hermann  Grimm’s 
Essays  (Hanover,  1859),  p.  119.  For  Albrecht  von  Eyb,  Kurz  und  Paldamus, 
Deutsche  Dichter  und  Prosaisten,  i,  26-33  5  a  specimen  of  his  translations 
is  given  by  Cholevius,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Poesie  nach  ihren  antiken 
Elementen,  i,  285. 

2.  Songs  and  Ballads ,  pp.  246-253. 

Meistersong :  Bartsch,  Meisterlieder  der  Kolmarer  Handschrift  (Stutt.  1862) ; 
Holtzmann,  Germ.  iii.  307.  v.  210;  Zingerle,  Wiltener  Handschrift,  Wiener 
Sitzungsberichte,  xxx\ii.  331  ;  Wackernagel,  Litteraturgeschichte,  p.  325,  Anm. 
16;  Martin,  Die  Meistersan  er  von  Strassburg  (Strassb.  1 88 2 't,  Strassb  Studien, 
i.  76.  On  the  conservative  tendency  of  the  Rhenish  Mcistergesang,  Godeke, 
Germ  xv.  200.  On  the  influence  of  the  Nuremberg  Meistersin^eis  in  preserving 
the  Heroic  Legends  see  Steinmeyer,  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil.  iii.  241. 

Volkslied.  Ballads:  Uhland,  Alte  hoch-  und  niederdeutsche  Volkslitder, 
(Stuttg.,  1844,45)  Schriften,  vols.  iii,  iv  ;  L.liencron,  Die  historischen  Volkslie- 
der  der  Deutschen,  5  vols.  (Leipz.  1 865 -69 ^ ;  Bohme,  Altdeutschcs  LiederLuch 
(Leipz.  1877)  ;  L.  Tobler,  Schweizerische  Volkslieder  iFrauenfeld,  1882). 
See  Mullenhoff,  Preface  to  the  Schleswigholsteinische  Sagen  (Kiel,  1845); 
Ferd.  Wolf,  Preface  to  Warrens  Schwedische  Volkslieder  (Le’pz.  1857). 
The  evidence  afforded  by  the  Limburg  Chronicle  is  given  by  Chrysander, 

B  b  2 


372 


Bibliography. 


Jahrbuch  fur  musikalische  Wissenschaft,  i  115.  More  information  in  Bohme. 
The  noble  Moringers  Journey  to  the  East  seems  to  be  derived  from  the 
association  of  the  name  of  Iitinrich  von  Morungen  with  the  Moors,  and  his 
rival  is  called  the  young  lord  of  Neifen  because  Gottfried  von  Neifen  once  sang 
of  a  falsely  disguised  Pilgrim  (Haupt,  45,  8).  Tannhduser  s  Farewell  to  Lady 
Venus,  Keller,  Fastnachtspiel  Nachl.  No.  124;  see  Walther,  100.  24. 

3.  Rhymed  Couplets ,  pp.  253-259. 

Reineke  Fuchs.  J.  Giimm,  Reinhart  Fuchs  (comp.  VI.  2).  Mlillenhoff, 
Zs.  xviii.  1.  Voigt,  Q.  F.  vii.  25.  Le  roman  de  Renart,  Martin,  i.  (Strassburg, 
1882).  Reinaert,  pub.  by  Martin  (Paderborn,  1874).  Reinke  de  Vos,  ed. 
Liibben  (Oldenburg,  1867).  Schroder  (Leipz.  1872)  ;  comp.  Prien,  Beitr.  viii.  1. 
Ranke,  Deutsche  Geschic  ,te  im  Zeitalter  der  Reformation,  i.  199  (3rd  ed.). 
—  Wittenweiler s  Ring,  ed.  Pechstein  (Stuttg.  1851).  ‘  Des  Teufels  Netz,'  ed. 

Barack  (Stuttg.  1863). — Hermann  von  Sachsenheim,  ed.  Martin  (Tubingen, 

1878) . 

Sebastian  Brand ,  Narrenschiff,  ed.  Zarncke  (Leipz.  1854)  ;  Godeke  (Leipz. 
1872).  Translation,  Simrock  (Berl.  1S72).  See  Zarncke,  Zur  Vorgeschichte 
des  Narrenschiffes  (from  the  Serapeum  29,  Leipz.  1868  ;  second  communication, 
Leipz.  1871) ;  Schmidt,  Histoire  litteraire  de  1’  Alsace,  i.  189. —  Thomas  Murner, 
see  Lappenberg,  Dr.  Thomas  Murner’s  Ulenspiegel  (Leipz.  1854),  P-  384etseq. 
Godeke  in  the  Introduction  to  his  edition  of  the  ‘  Narrenbeschworung  ’  (Leipz. 

1879) .  Short  account  in  Lorenz  and  Scherer,  Geschichte  des  Elsasses,  2nd  ed. 
Berl.  1872),  p.  167.  Schmidt,  ii.  209. 

Piiterich  von  Reicherzhausen ,  Zs.  vi.  31  ;  Q.  F.  xxi.  16.  Ulrich  Futrer ; 
Hamburger,  Untersuchungen  fiber  U.  F.  (Strassb.  1882)  ;  Spiller,  Zs.  xxvii. 
262.  Maximilian  /, ‘  Theuerdank,’  ed.  Haltaus  (Quedlinburg,  1836);  Godeke 
(Leipz.  1878).  For  the  ‘  Weisskunig ]  Liliencron  in  Raumer’s  Historisches 
Taschenbuch,  v.  Folge,  3.  321. — The  prose  of  Herzog  Ernst]  see  Bartsch, 
Herzog  Ernst  (Vienna,  1869),  p.  227  ;  Tristrant  and  Isalde ,  ed.  Pfaff  (Tubin¬ 
gen,  18S1). 

4.  Prose,  pp.  259-264. 

Prose  Romances.  A  convenient  sketch  is  given  by  Godeke,  §§  103-108. 
Reproductions  in  Simrock’s  Deutsche  Volksbiichern.  See  Bobertag,  Geschichte 
des  Romans,  i.  (Breslau,  1877)  and  Scherer’s  critique,  Q.  F.  xxi.  (Strassb.  1877). 
On  the  Lanzclot  romances ,  see  Peter,  Germ,  xxviii.  129.  ‘  Parables  of  the  old 

Sages’  ed  Holland  (Stuttg.  1860)-  1  Decamer one]  of  which  the  translation  is 

not  by  Steinhowel,  ed.  Keller  (Stuttg.  i860).  For  Dr.  Johannes  Hartlieb ,  see 
Ofele,  A.  D.  B.  670.  On  Thiiring  von  Ringoltingen  and  Wilhelm  Ziely ,  see 
B'achtold  in  the  Berner  Taschenbuch,  1878.  Eulenspiegel ,  ed.  Lappenberg 
(Leipz.  iS54>,  Q-  F.  xxi.  26.  78. 

Other  prose  writings  :  Sermons.  Wackernngel,  Altdeutscke  Predigten  und 
Gebete  (Basle,  1 8 76),  with  an  Essay  by  M.  Rieger  on  old  German  preaching; 
Cruel,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Predigt  im  Mittelalter  (Detmold,  1879). 
Juristic  prose  :  Stobbe,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Rechtsquellen,  2  vols.  (Berl. 
i860,  1864).  Scientific  prose  works  :  see  Albertus  Magnus,  in  text  p.  229.  Pre- 


Chapter  VIII. 


373 


scriptions  :  Denkm.  62.  Medicinal  books'.  Hoffmann,  Fundgruben,  i.  31 7; 
Pfeiffer,  Wiener  Sitzungsberichte,  42,  110;  Joseph  Haupt,  ibid.  71,  451 ;  Haser, 
Geschichte  der  Medicin  (3rd  ed.),  i.  697,  818.  History  :  see  O.  Lorenz,  Dcutsch- 
lands  Geschichtsquellen  im  Mittelalter  (2nd  ed.),  2  vols.  (Perl.  1876-77);  The 
Saxon  Universal  Chronicle ,  ed.  Weiland,  in  the  Mon.  Germ.  Deutsche  Chro- 
niken,  ii.  (Hanover,  1877).  On  Windeck,  Droysen  (Leipz.  1853)  ;  Kern,  in 
the  Zs.  fiir  Culturgeschichte,  1875,  p.  349.  On  th^  German  versio  s  of  Latin 
histories  for  the  laity,  see  Waitz  on  Hermann  Kori  er  (Gottingen,  1851),  p.  16. 

Dialogues.  ‘  Ackermann  aus  Bdhmcn]  ed.  Knieschek  (Prague,  1877).  Niclas 
von  IVyle ,  ed.  Keller  (Stuttg.  1861). 

Mathilda  of  Austria.  Martin,  Erzherzogin  Mechthild  (Freiburg,  1871); 
Strauch,  Pfalzgrafin  Mechthild  (Tubingen,  1883).  For  Heidelberg ,  see  Wilken, 
Geschichte  der  Heidelb.  Biichersammlungen  (Heidelberg,  1817),  pp.  30S, 
35 1 5  394- 


5.  Humanism ,  pp.  264-270. 

There  is  no  good  history  of  the  German  Universities.  For  the  character¬ 
istics  of  the  German  Universities  in  the  Middle  Ages,  see  Paulsen  in  von 
Sybel’s  Historische  Zs.  N.  F.  vol.  ix.  For  Prague ,  see  Friedjung,  Kaiser  Karl 
iv.  (Vienna,  1876),  p.  127.  On  the  Humanists  in  general:  Meiners’  Lebens- 
beschreibungen  beriihmter  Manner  aus  den  Zeiten  der  Wiederherstellung  der 
Wissenchaften,  3  vols.  (Zurich,  1795-97)  ;  H.  A.  Erhard,  Geschichte  des 
Wiederaufbliihens  wissenschaftlicher  Bildung,  3  vols.  (Magdeburg,  1827-32)  ; 
Karl  Hagen,  Deutschlands  religiose  und  litteraiische  Verhaltnisse  ;m  Zeitalter 
der  Reformation,  3  vols.  (Eilangen,  1841-4  f)  ;  G.  Voigt,  Die  Wiederbelebung 
des  classischen  Alterthums  (2nd  ed.),  2  vols.  (Berl  1880-1);  J.  Burckhardt, 
Die  Cultur  der  Renaissance  in  Italien  (3rd  ed.  by  L.  Geiger),  2  vols.  (Leipz. 
1 877-78  ;  L  Geiger,  Renais-ance  und  Iiumanismus  in  Italien  und  Deutschland 
(Berl.  18S2). 

Heinrich  von  Langenstein  :  O.  Hartwig,  H.  v.  L.  (Marburg,  1858).  On 
Gutenberg,  v.  d.  Linde,  Gutenberg  (Stuttg  1878).  On  Peuerbach  and  Regio¬ 
montanus,  Wolf,  Geschichte  der  Astronomie  (Munich,  1877) ;  on  their  Lectures 
in  Vienna,  Kink,  Gesch.  der  kais.  Univ.  Wien,  i.  (Vienna,  1854),  182  ;  Asch- 
bach,  Gesch.  der  Wiener  Univ.  i.  (Vienna,  1865),  480,  353  ;  Peter  Luder,  Wat- 
tenbach  P.  L.  (Karlsruh,  1869)  p.  11.  PEneas  Sylvius  in  Vienna,  Voigt,  Enea 
Silvio  de’  Piccolomini,  ii.  (Berlin,  1862),  342.  Celtis ,  Aschbach,  Gesch.  der 
Wiener  Univ.  ii.  189-270  ;  Hartfelder,  Sybel’s  Hist.  Zs.  47.  15. 

Gerhard  Groote :  K.  v.  Raumer,  Gesch.  der  Padagogik  (4th  ed.)  i.  54; 
A.  D.  B.  ix.  730  Erasmus ,  A.  D.  B.  vi.  160,  where  other  works  are  mentioned  ; 
Horawitz,  Wiener  Sitzungsberichte,  90,  387.  95,  575.  ico,  665. 102,  755.  Reuch- 
lin:  L.  Geiger,  Johann  Reuchlin  (Leipz.  1871);  Reuchlin,  Briefwechsel  (Tub¬ 
ingen,  1875).  Bebel:  Zapf,  Heinrich  Bebel  (Augsburg,  1802);  see  H.  B. 
Pioverbia  Germanica,  ed.  Suringar  (Leyden,  1879). 

On  the  Erfurt  circle:  Kampschulie,  Universitat  Erfurt,  2  parts  (Treves, 
1858-60).  Also  Kampschulte  ‘  De  Joanne  Croto  Rubiano  (Bonne,  1862); 
C.  Krause,  Helius  Eobanus  Hcssus ,  2  vols.  (Gotha,  1879)  I  C.  Krause,  Euricius 
Cordus  (Hanau,  1863);  Strauss,  Ulrich  von  Hut  ten,  2  vols.  (Leipz.  1858, 


374 


Bibliography . 


2nd  ed.  1871).  Hutten’s  works  were  published  by  Eduard  Booking  in  5  vols. 
with  2  vols.  Appendix  (Leipz.  1859-1870) ;  the  Appendix  contains  the  Epistolae 
obscuro.um  virorum. 


IX.  The  Reformation  and  the  Renaissance,  pp.  271-330. 

For  the  effect  of  the  Peace  of  1551  see  Ranke,  Sammtliche  Werke,  vii.  1. 
Godeke’s  Grundriss  gives  the  fullest  material  for  this  and  for  all  the  following 
chapters.  See  too,  E.  Weller,  Annalen  der  poetischen  Nationallitteratur  der 
Deutschen  im  16  and  17  Jahrhunderte,  2  vols.  (Freiburg,  1862-64);  Reper- 
tcrium  typographicum  (Nordlingen,  1864),  with  a  Supplement  (1874). 

1.  Martiti  Luther ,  pp.  272-282. 

For  Luther’s  connection  with  German  literature,  besides  this  section  see 
further  on,  IX.  2  and  3  (Fables,  Proverbs,  Secular  songs,  Novels),  and 
4,  The  Drama.  I  have  given  no  list  of  the  numerous  Lives  of  Luther.  Julius 
Kostlin’s  work  (Elberfeld,  1872,  2  vols  )  has  proved  of  great  use.  W.  Mauren- 
brecher,  Geschichte  der  Katholischen  Reformation,  vol.  i.  (Nordlingen,  1  880), 
is  a  good  guide  to  the  newest  literature  on  the  subject,  and  for  vexed  questions. 
Our  knowledge  of  Luther’s  correspondence  (ed.  de  Witte,  5  vols.  Berl.  1825-28, 
with  a  6th  vol.  by  Seidemann,  Berl.  1856  ;  also  Seidemann,  Lutherbriefe, 
Dresden,  1859  ;  Burkhardt,  Dr.  M.  L.  Briefwechsel,  Leipz.  i8'  6)  has  been  lately 
increased  by  Kolde,  Ana'ecta  Lutherana- (Gotha,  1883).  For  the  Table  Talk: 
M  Anton,  Lauterbachs  Tagebuch,  1538,  the  principal  source  of  Luther’s  Table 
Talk,  published  by  Seidemann  (Dresden,  1872).  On  Mathesius,  see  Plitt, 
Die  vier  ersten  Lutherbiogi aphen  (Erlangen,  1876'  ,  p.  17. 

His  position  with  regard  to  the  New  Learning.  O.  G  Schmidt,  Luther’s 
Bekanntschaft  mit  den  alten  Classikern  (Leipz  it 83). 

Translation  of  the  Bible.  See  in  Text,  p.  30.  Old  High-German  Gospel 
of  St.  Matthew,  p.  40.  Middle  High-German  Gospels,  Germ.  xiv.  440 ; 
Zs  ix.  264 ;  Matthias  von  Beheim,  Book  of  the  Gospels  in  Middle  German, 
Ed.  R.  Bechstein  (Leipz.  1867).  Compare  in  text,  p.  233.  The  Codex 
Teplensis,  containing  Die  Schrift  des  newen  Gezeuges  (Munich,  1884).  Psalms 
(except  Notker’s,  see  p.  51),  Deutsche  Interlinearversion  der  Psalmen,  ed. 
Graff  (Quedlinburg,  1839),  and  others.  Versions  of  the  historical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  (comp.  Rudolf  von  Ems,  Universal  Chronicle,  p  180); 
Die  deutschen  Historienbibeln  des  Mittelalters,  ed.  Merzdorf  (Tubingen,  1870). 
Luther’s  Translation,  critical  edition,  Bindseil  und  Niemeyer,  7  Parts  (Halle, 
1850-55).  Facsimile  of  the  so  called  September  Bible,  (the  New  Testament  of 
Sept.  1522),  (Berl.  1883).  See  I.  G.  Palm,  Histone  der  deutschen  Bibeliiber- 
setzung  D.  Martini  Lutheri  von  1517  bis  1534  (Halle,  1772);  J.  M.  Goeze, 
Verzeichnis  seiner  Sammlung  seltener  und  merkwiirdiger  Bibeln  (Halle,  17  7). 
Fortsetzung  des  Verzeichnisses  (Hamburg  and  Halberstadt,  1778).  Neue  fur 
die  Kritik  und  Historie  der  Bibeliibersetzung  Lutheri  wichtige  Entdeckungen 
(Hamburg  and  Leipzig.  1777);  Panzer,  Entwnrf  einer  vollstandigen  Geschichte 
der  deutschen  Bibeliibersetzung  M.  L.  (Nuremberg,  17835  2nc^  1 791 )  > 


Chapter  IX. 


375 


Schott,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Bibeltibersetzung  M.  L.  (Leipzic,  1835); 
Hopf,  Wiirdigung  der  Lutherischen  Bibeltibersetzung  (Nuremberg,  1847)  ; 
Kehrein,  Zur  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Bibeltibers.  von  Luther  (Stuttg.  1851)  ; 
J.  M.  Goeze,  Historic  der  gedruckten  niedersachsischen  Bibeln  von  1470  to 
1621  (Halle,  1775);  Mezger,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Bibeliibersetzungen  in 
der  schweizerisch-reformirten  Kirche  (Basle,  1876). 

Langiiage.  Miillenhoffs  Preface  to  the  Denkmaler  ;  Sch.,  Vortrage  und  Auf- 
satze,  p.  45  ;  H.  Riickert,  Geschichte  der  neuhochdeutschen  Schriftsprache, 
2  vols.  (Leipz.  1875).  For  Luthers  language  especially:  Monckeberg,  Bei- 
trage  zur  wiirdigen  Herstellung  des  Textes  der  Lutherischen  Bibtliibersetzung 
(Hamburg,  1855).  Wetzel,  Die  Sprache  Luthers  (Stuttg.  1850);  From- 
mann,  Vorschlage  zur  Revision  von  M.  L.  Bibeliibers.  sprachlicher  Theil 
(Halle,  1862);  Opitz,  Uber  die  Sprache  Luthers  (Halle,  1869);  Dietz, 
Worterbuch  zu  M.  L.  deutschen  Schriften,  vol.  i.  (Leipz.  1870,  not  finished)  ; 
Lehmann,  Luther’s  Sprache  (Halle,  1873)  ;  Wiilcker  Germ,  xxviii.  191.  On 
modernized  forms :  Godeke  Grundriss,  §  143.  I.  On  Grammars,  see  Joh. 
Muller,  Quellenschriften  und  Geschichte  des  deutschsprachlichen  Unterrichtes 
bis  zur  Mitte  des  16  Jahrh.  (Gotha,  1882).  Of  Fabiun  Frangk,  the  most 
distinguished  of  all  the  old  Grammarians,  Muller  (p.  393),  says,  ‘  He  is  the 
father  of  the  newer  classical  language,  the  German  of  Luther.’  For  Olingcr 
and  Clajus  see  R.  v.  Raumer,  Unteiricht  im  Deutschen  (4th  ed.  Giitersloh, 
1873),  p.  20. 

Sermons.  See  Cruel’s  work  named  above  VIII.  4  ;  Jonas,  Die  Kanzel- 
beredsamkeit  Luther’s  (Berlin,  1852).  On  Geilervon  Kaisersberg  see  Lorenz 
und  Sch.,  Geschichte  des  Elsasses,  p.  150,  and  Martin  A.  D.  B.  viii.  509; 
Schmidt,  Hist.  litt.  i.  335. 

Church  Song.  Hoffmann  von  Fallersleben,  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Kirchen- 
liedes  bis  auf  Luthers  Zeit,  2nd  ed.  (Hanover,  1854);  E.  E.  Koch,  Geschichte 
des  Kirchenliedes  und  Kirchengesangs  der  christlichen  inbesonders  der 
deutschen  evangel,  Kirche,  3rd  ed.  8  vols.  (Stuttg.  1866-76';  Phil.  Wacker- 
nagel,  Bibliographic  zur  Gesch.  des  deutschen  Kirchenliedes  im  16  Jahrh. 
(Frankfort,  1855).  Das  deutsche  Kirchenlied  von  der  altesten  Zeit  bis  zu 
Anfang  des  17  Jahrh.  5  vols.  (Leipz.  1864-77). 

‘  Ein  Feste  Burg.'  See  Schneider ;  M.  L.  geistliche  Lieder,  2nd  ed.  (Berl. 
1856),  p.  xlii ;  Knaake  Luthardls  Zs.  fur  kirchliche  Wissenschaft  und 
kirc-hl.  Leben  i.  (1881),  p.  39. 

2.  Luther's  Associates  and  Successors,  pp.  282-290. 

Luther  s  opponents.  For  the  Anabaptists,  see  Cornelius,  Gesch.  des  Miin- 
steriscfen  Aufruhrs,  Book  II  (Leipz.  i860),  1-98.  Hase,  Sebastian  Franck 
von  Word  (Leipz.  1869).  Schneider,  Zur  Litteratur  der  Schwenckfeldischen 
Liederdichter  bis  Daniel  Sudermann  (Berlin,  1857).  Murners  *  Grosser  Lu- 
therischer  Narr,’  Ed.  Kurz  (Zurich,  1848). 

Ulrich  von  ILutten  (see  above,  VIII.  5,  Erfurt  circle).  Strauss  has  trans¬ 
lated  and  explained  the  ‘  Gesprache  von  U.  v.  H.’  (Leipz.  t86o).  Pirkheimers 
Eccius  dedolatus  is  in  Booking's  Hut;en  iv.  515.  Hans  Sachs'  Dialogues  have 


Bibliography . 


376 

been  published  by  Reinhold  Kohler  (Weimar,  is5q).  There  is  a  monograph 
on  Eberlin  von  Giinzburg ,  by  B.  Riggenbach  (Tubingen,  1874).  On  Niclas 
Manuel ,  see  below,  IX.  4.  On  Utz  Eckstein,  see  Sch.  A.  D.  B.  v.  636.  ‘  Karst- 
haus ’  in  Booking  iv.  615.  Consult  O.  Schade,  Satiren  und  Pasquille  aus  der 
Reformationszeit,  2nd  ed.  3  vols.  (Hanover,  1863).  A.  Baur,  Deutschland  in 
den  Jahren  1517-1525  (Ulm,  187  >). 

Newspapers.  Th.  Sickel,  Weimar  Jahrbuch  i.  344.  E.  Weller,  Die  ersten 
deutschen  Zeitungen  (Tubingen,  1872);  R.  Grasshoff,  Die  briefliche  Zeitung 
des  16  Jahrh.  (Leipz.  1877).  See  Liliencron,  Mittheilungen  aus  dem  Gebiete 
der  offentlichen  Meinung  in  Deutschland  wahrend  der  zweiten  Halfte  des 
16  Jahrh.  (Munich,  1874,  75.  Abhandlungen  der  bayer.-Akademie). 

Meistersong.  Schnorr  von  Carolsfeld,  Zur  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Meis- 
tergesangs  (Berl.  1872).  Luther’s  Hymn-book  of  1528  was  discovered  by 
Knaake  in  a  later  reprint.  Bartholoniaus  Ringwald,  see  Hoffmann,  Spenden 
zur  deutschen  Litteraturgeschichte,  ii.  17. 

Marot's  Psalms.  See  Hopfner  Reformbestrebungen  auf  dem  Gebiete  der 
deutschen  Dichtung  des  16  and  17  Jahrh.  (Berl.  1866),  pp.  24-29.  Kasper 
Scheid :  his  ‘  Grobianus’  was  lately  printed  (Halle,  1882),  with  an  Introduction 
by  Milchsack.  On  Dedckind  see  Sch.  A.  D.  B.  v.  12.  Johann  Fischart,  Erich 
Schmidt,  A.  D.  B.  vii.  31,  where  earlier  works  are  given.  See  Wendeler,  Die 
Fischartstudien  des  Ereiherm  von  Meusebach  (Halle,  1879)  1  Johann  Fischart 
sammtliche  Dichtungen,  ed.  Kurz,  3  vols.  (Leipz.  1866-67)  ;  Dichtungen  von 
J.  F.  ed.  Godeke  (Leipz.  1880).  P'or  the  ‘  Gliickhaftes  Schiffl  see  Bachtold 
in  the  Mittheilungen  der  Antiquarischen  Gesellschaft  in  Zurich  44  (Zurich, 
1880). 


3.  Secular  Literature ,  pp.  290-330. 

Melanehthon :  Monograph,  by  C.  Schmidt  (Elberfeld,  1861).  See  K.  von 
Raumer,  Gesch.  der  Padagogik,  I,  145  :  Paur,  Zur  Litteratur  und  Kultur- 
geschichte  (Ltipzic,  1876)  p.  169.  ‘  Melanchthons  Naturauffassung ;  ’  Stintzing, 

Gesch.  der  deutschen  Rechtswissenschaft  i.  283. — Gesner;  Carus,  Gesch.  der 
Zoologie  p  274. —  Theophrastus  Paracelsus  ;  Kopp,  Entwickelung  der  Chemie 
(Munich,  1873)  p.  22;  Haser  ii.  71. — Flacius\  Preger,  Mathias  Flacius 
Illyricus  und  seine  Zeit,  2  vols.  (Leipzic,  1859,  61)  ;  Schulte,  Beitrag  zur  Ent- 
stehungsgeschichte  der  Magdeburger  Centurien  (Neisse,  1877)  ;  Baur,  Epochen 
der  kirchlichen  Geschichtschreibung  (.Tubingen  1852).  —  Dahlmann  in  his 
Quellenkunde  (Gottingen,  1830)  p.  19,  was  the  first  to  see  that  Wimpfelings 
Epitome  rerum  Germanicarum  was  the  first  German  History.  On  Wimpfeling 
see  Lorenz  und  Sch.  Gesch.  des  Elsasses,  p.  160,  Schmidt,  Hist.  Litt.  i.  1,  and 
the  monographs  by  Wiskowatoff  (Berl.  1867b  and  by  Schwartz  (Gotha,  1875'. 
— For  Sleidanus  see  Kampschulte  in  the  Forschungen  zur  deutschen  Gesch.  iv. 
57. — For  Biographies ,  the  best  authority  is  Melch.  Adam,  Vitae Theologorum, 
Jure-consultorum  et  Politicorum,  Medicorum,  atque  Philosophorum,  maximam 
partem  Germanorum.  Ed.  tertia  (Francof.  1706).  Adam  was  a  Silesian,  and 
died  in  1622.  The  first  ed.  of  his  Biographies  was  published  at  Heidelberg, 
1615-20,  in  5  vols. —  German  Autobiographies:  Gotz  von  Berlichingen ,  ed. 


Chapter  IX. 


377 


Franck  von  Steigerwald  (Nuremberg,  1731):  Hans  von  Schweinichen,  ed. 
Osterley  (Breslau,  1878) ;  Sebastian  Schertlin  von  Burtenbach ,  ed.  Holzschu- 
her  und  Hummel  (Frankfort,  1777),  Schonhuth  (Munster,  1838);  Thomas  and 
Felix  Plater ,  ed.  Boos  (Leipzic,  1878)  :  Barthol  Sastrow,  ed.  Mohnicke,  3  vols. 
(Greifswald,  1824). 

The  Latin  Poets  are  noticed  by  hardly  any  one  except  Wolfgang  Menzel  in 
his  Deutsche  Dichtung  (3  vols.  Stuttgart,  1858,  59),  but  his  accounts  are  very 
inaccurate.  A  small  work  by  a  certain  Gerard  Faust,  of  Coblentz,  Poetae 
historici  item  Germani  aliquot  celebres  singulis  Distichis  descripti  (Argentor. 
1546)  mentions  no  less  than  ninety-two  names  of  Latin  poets  in  Germany. 
Bylovius  (Amores,  Francof.  1597)  mentions  the  poets,  and  the  women  whose 
praises  they  sang,  together,  and  thus  passes  in  review  the  German  love  poetry 
written  in  Latin:  and  one  sees  how  the  number  of  these  poems  bad  increased 
towards  1600.  For  religious  polemical  works,  in  which  the  opponent  is 
ridiculed  as  an  animal,  see  Johann  Major  (1533-1600):  comp.  G.  Frank, 
Johann  Major,  der  Wittenberger  Poet  (Halle,  1863).  We  may  further  refer  to 
Classen,  Jacobus  Micyllus  (Frankf.,  1859,  Progr.  1861):  Henkel  Petrus 
Lotichius  Secundus  (Bremae,  1873):  comp.  Des  P.  L.  S.  Elegien,  translated 
by  Kostlin,  (Halle,  1826)  ;  for  George  Sabinus,  Melanchthons  piofligate  son-in- 
law,  see  Toppen,  Griindung  der  Universitat  Konigsberg  (Konigsb.  1844),  and 
Muther,  Aus  dem  Universitats-und  Gelehrtenleben  im  Zeitalter  der  Reforma¬ 
tion  (Erlangen,  1866)  p.  329-3 67. 

Translations.  For  a  general  view,  see  Godeke  §§  1 14,  143,  ii.  The  best 
works  are  still  those  by  J.  F.  Degen  :  Litteratur  der  deutschen  Ubersetzungen 
der  Griechen,  2  vols.  (Altenburg,  1797,  98)  with  an  Appendix  (Erlangen,  1801): 
Versuch  einen  vollstandigen  Litteratur  der  deutschen  Ubersetzungen  der 
Romer,  2  parts  (Altenburg,  1794-97)  with  Appendix  (Erlangen,  1799).  See 
also  Schummel,  Ubersetzer-BiLliothek  (Wittenberg  und  Zerbst,  17  74). 

Fables.  Steinhowels  ZEsop.  ed.  Osterley  (Tubingen,  1873).  Ltithcrs  Fables, 
Godeke  p.  155  and  364,  No.  7.  Erasmus  Alberus,  ibid.  p.  359:  see  Schnorrs 
Archiv.  vi.  1.,  x.  273,  xi.  177,  628,  xii.  26.  Burkard  Waldis ,  ‘  Esopus,’  ed. 
Kurz,  2  vols.  (Leip.  1862):  Tittmann ,  2  vols.  (Leipz.  1882):  see  Milchsack, 
B.  W.  (Halle,  1881).  ‘  Georg  Rollenhagen,'  ‘  Froschmeuseler,’  ed.  Godeke, 

2  Parts  (Leipz.  1876):  Fischarts  Flohhatz,  has  been  republished  by  Wendeler 
(Halle,  1877).  For  Spangenberg  see  Lorenz  and  Sch.  Geschichte  des  Elsasses, 
P-  3°3- 

Proverbs.  Hoffman  von  Fallersleben  in  the  Weimar  Jahrbuch  II.  173:  in  the 
Horae  belgicae  ix.  3.  Tunnicius,  ed.  Hoffmann  von  Fallersleben  (Berlin,  1870), 
also  Germ.  xv.  195.  Latendorf,  Agricolds  Sprichworter,  ihr  hochdeutscher 
Ursprung  (Schwerin,  1862):  L.  v.  Passavant  against  Agricola’s  Sprichworter, 
ed.  Latendorf  (Berl.,  1873).  Sebastian  Francks  first  anonymous  collection  of 
Proverbs  of  the  year  1532,  ed.  Latendorf  (Posneck,  1876). 

Farcical  Anecdotes.  Godeke,  Schwanke  des  16  Jahrh.  (Leipz.,  1879),  with  an 
introduction  giving  the  characteristics  of  the  separate  collections.  There  are 
new  editions  of  Pauli  (Stuttg.,  1866),  KirchhoJJ (Stuttg.,  1869)  by  Osterley  ;  of 
the  Rollwagenbiichlein  (Leipz.,  1865)  by  Kurz,  and  of  Lindener  (Tubingen, 
1883)  by  Lichtenstein. 


378 


Bibliography . 


Secular  Songs.  The  utterances  of  Luther  and  other  Reformers  in  Godeke, 
p.  122:  Zs.  xv.  325:  Deutsche  Studien,  iii.  59. — See,  in  general,  Hoffmann  von 
Fallersleben,  Die  Deutschen  Gesellschaftslieder  des  16  and  17  Jahrh.  2  ed. 
(Leipz.,  i860). 

Novels.  See  above,  VIII.  4.  Against  the  prose  novel,  see  Marbach  of 
Strassburg,  in  Raumur,  Gesch.  der  Padagogik  4th  ed.  i.  245,  notes;  compare 
Reifferscheid,  Zs.  fur  Kulturgeschichte  1873,  p.  703. — The  People’s  Book 
‘  Kaiser  Friedrich ,’  Zs.  v,  253;  see  Q.  F.  xxi.  93. — -forg.  Wickram  ;  Lorenz 
und  Sch.  Gesch.  des  Elsasses,  p.  267  :  Sch.  Q.  F.  xxi.  35.  E.  Schmidt,  Schnorr's 
Archiv  viii,  317.— For  the  ‘  Finkenritter  ’  see  Miiller-Fraureuth,  Die  deutschen 
Lugendichtungen  bis  auf  Mlinchhausen  (Halle,  1881)  p.  24.—  Claus  Narr ,  see 
Schnorr  Archiv  vi.  277.  Hans  Clauert.  see  Sch.  A.  D.  B.  17,  226,  reprint 
(Halle,  1882). — On  Faust,  see  below,  XIII.  4. 

4.  The  Drama  from  1517-1620,  pp.  300-314. 

See  in  Gottsched,  Nbthiger  Vorrath  zur  Gesch.  der  deutschen  dramatischen 
Dichtkunst  (Leipz.,  1757:  2nd  part,  with  Freieslebens  Nachlese,  1765):  see 
Godeke  Grundr.  §§  113,  145-155,  170-172.  Compare  Prutz,  Vorlesungen 
iiber  die  Geschichte  des  deutschen  Theateis  (Berl.,  1847):  Genee,  Lehr- und 
Wanderjahre  des  deutschen  Schauspiels  (Berlin,  1882):  also  Devrient,  Ge¬ 
schichte  der  deutschen  Schauspielkunst,  5  vols.  (Leipz.,  1848  74). — Texts  in 
Tittmann,  Schauspiele  aus  dem  16  Jahrh.  2  parts  (Leipz.,  1862). 

Dither  and  the  Drama.  Godeke  Grundr.  p.  306  ;  Sch.  Deutsche  Studien, 
iii.  13.  Luther’s  Sermon  on  the  Contemplation  of  Christ’s  Sufferings,  Werke, 
Altenb.  i.  296. 

Various  sorts  of  Drama.  The  Prodigal  Son,  Sch.  Q.  F.  xxi.  50;  Holstein 
Progr.  (Geestemiinde,  1880):  E.  Schmidt,  Komodien  vom  Studentenleben 
(Leipz.,  1880).— For  foseph  in  Egypt,  see  Sch.  Deutsche  Studien,  iii.  29: 
Thiebold  Garts  Joseph,  ed.  E.  Schmidt  (Strassb.  1880). — For  Suscmna,  Herm. 
Grimm,  15  Essays,  New  Series  (Berlin,  1875),  p.  147  :  R.  Pi’ger,  Die  Drama- 
tisirung  der  Susanna  im  16  Jahrh.  (Halle,  1879). 

Switzerland  and  Alsace-.  E.  Weller,  Das  alte  Volkstheater  der  Schweiz 
(Frauenfeld,  1863b  Niklas  Manuel ,  ed.  Griineisen  (Stuttg.,  1837):  Bach- 
told  (Frauenfeld,  1878,  Bibliothek  alterer  Schriftwerke  der  deutschen  Schweiz, 
vol.  2).  Dasypodius ,  Sch.  Wagners  Archiv  i.  487.  Sixtus  B irk :  Sch.  A.  D. 
B.  ii.  656. — Lorenz  und  Sch.  Gesch.  des  Elsasses,  p.  263,  295.  A.  Jundt,  Die 
dramatischen  Auffiihrungen  im  Gymnasium  zu  Strassburg  (Strassb.  1881). 

Hans  Sachs.  Keller  and  Gotze  began  a  new  edition  (Tubingen,  1870);  a 
Collection  of  the  Carnival  Plays  by  Gotze  (Halle,  1880;  the  chronology  is 
wrong):  a  Selection  by  Godeke  und  Tittmann  3  vols.  (Leipzic,  1870,  71) 
with  Introduction.  The  books  on  Hans  Sachs  do  not  teach  us  much. 

Luthers  ciixle.  foachim  Greff :  Sch.  Deutsche  Studien,  iii.  11;  Holstein, 
Schnorr’s  Archiv  x.  154. — Johann  Agricola,  Monograph  Kordes  (Altona,  1817); 
Kawerau  (Berlin,  1881);  see  Schnorr’s  Archiv  x.  6,  273. — Paul  Rebhun,  ed. 
Palm  (Stuttg.,  1859). —  Thomas  Naogeorg ;  Sch.  Zs.  xxiii.  190.— Johannes 
Chryseus,  Sch.  A.  D.  B.  iv.  253. 

Nicodemus  Frischlin :  his  German  poems  were  published  by  Strauss  (Stuttg. 


Chapter  IX.  379 

1857).  See  Strauss,  N.  F.  (Frankf.  1856);  Sch.  A.  D.  B.  viii.  96,  also  vii. 
106,  Flayderus. 

English  actors.  A.  Cohn,  Shakespeare  in  Germany  (London  and  Berl.  1865), 
Tittmann,  Die  Schauspiele  der  engl.  Com.  in  Deutschland  (Leipz.  1880)  ; 
compare  Sch.  Zs.  xxiii.  197  .—Jacob  Ay rer\  ed.  Keller,  5  vols.  (Stuttg.  1865)  ;  see 
Tittmann,  Schauspiele  aus  dem  16  Jahrh.  ii.  123. — Duke  Heinrich  Julius  of 
Brunswick ,  ed.  Holland  (Stuttg.  1855) ;  Tittmann,  (Leipz.  1880) ;  see  Hermann 
Grimm,  Funfzehn  Essays,  New  Series,  p.  142.  For  Bertesius  see  Sch.  A.  D. 
B.  ii.  512. — Landgrave  Maurice  of  Hesse  ;  see  Rommel,  Gesch.  von  Hessen,  vi. 
399-403  ;  Lynker,  Gesch.  des  Theaters  und  der  Musik  in  Cassel  (Cassel,  1865), 
p.  224,  247. 

5.  The  Thirty  Years'  War,  pp.  314-330. 

Kepler.  Reuschle,  K.  und  die  Astronomie  (Frankf.  1871)  ;  Valentine  Andred , 
Hossbach,  V.  A.  und  seine  Zeit  (Berl.  1819) :  E.  Schmidt  in  the  Goethe  Jahr- 
buch,  iv.  127:  other  works  on  the  subject  A.  D.  B.  i.  44 ($.— Johann  Arndt , 
A.  D.  B.  i.  548.— Jacob  Bohme,  ed.  Schiebler,  6  vols.  (Leipz.  1831-46). 
Hamherger,  Die  Lehre  J.  B.  (Munich,  1844);  Huber,  Kleine  Schriften,  p.  34 
(Leipz.  1871). — Book  tiade,  Q.  F.  xxi.  62,  notes. 

Weckherlin,  Poems  published  by  Godeke  (Leipz.  1873) ;  see  Hopfner, 
G.  R.  Weckherlins  Oden  and  Gesange  (Berl.  1 865). — Julius  Wilhelm  Zincgref  ‘ 
Schnorr  Archiv  viii.  1.  446.  The  best  memorial  of  the  Heidelberg  poetic  circle 
is  the  Appendix  to  Zincgref’s  edition  of  Opitz’s  poems  (Strassburg,  1624),  a 
reprint  (Halle,  1879).  See  Hopfner,  Reformbestrebungen,  (Berl.  1866).  Otto 
Schulz,  Die  Sprachgesellschaften  des  17  Jahrh.  (Berl.  1824);  Barthold,  Gesch. 
der  fruchtbringenden  Gesellschaft  (Berl.  1848);  Krause,  Der  fruchtbringenden 
Gesellschaft  altester  Ertzschrein  (Leipz.  1855). — Compare  Lemcke,  Gesch.  der 
deutschen  Dichtung  neuerer  Zeit,  vol.  i.  (from  Opitz  to  Klopstock,  Leipz., 
1871). 

Martin  Opitz.  See  Palm,  Beitr.  zur  Gesch.  der  deutschen  Litteratur  des 
16  and  17  Jahrh.  (Breslau,  1877),  p.  129.  Guttmann,  Uber  die  Ausgaben 
der  Gesammtwerke  von  Opitz,  Progr.  (Ratibor,  1850)  :  Strehlke,  M.  O. 
(Leipz.  1856);  Weinhold,  M.  O.  von  Boberfeld  (Kiel,  1862);  Zollner  in  the 
Deutsches  Museum,  1865  ;  Bernh.  Muth,  Uber  das  Verhaltnis  von  M.  O.  zu 
Dan.  Heinsius  (Leipz.  1872);  L.  Geiger,  Mittheilungen  aus  Handschriften  i. 
(Leipz.,  1876).  Selected  Poems  of  Opitz,  ed.  Tittmann  (Leipz.,  1869).  New 
edition  of  the  ‘Deutsche  Poeterei’  (Halle,  1876). — Review  of  German  Poetics 
in  Blankenburg,  continuation  of  Sulzer,  i.  402.  Godeke,  Grundriss  ii.  438  : 
Koberstein  ii,  44-55. 

August  Buchner.  Hoffmann  von  Fallersleben,  Weim.  Jahrb.  ii.  1  ;  W. 
Buchner,  August  Buchner  (Hanover,  1863).  Paul  Fleming ,  P.  P\  Lateinische 
Gedichte,  ed.  Lapperiberg  (Stuttg.,  1865) ;  P.  F.  Deutsche  Gedichte,  ed.  Lappen- 
berg  (Stuttg  ,  18  )5)  ;  Tittmann,  Selection  (Leipz  ,  1870).  Simon  Dach.  Ed. 
Osterley  (Tubingen,  1876);  Selection,  Osterley  (Leipz.,  1876):  see  Friedrich 
S.  D.  Progr.  (Dresden,  1862);  Ilenneberger’s  Jahrbuch  fiir  deutsche  Littera- 
turgeschichte  I  (Meiningen,  1855),  42. 

The  Nuremberg  Poets.  Tittmann,  Die  Niirnberger  Dichterschule  (Gottingen, 


3So 


Bibliography. 


1847).  Johann  Rist,  Hansen,  J.  R.  und  seine  Zeit.  (Halle,  1872);  J.R.  ‘Das 
friedewiinschende  Teutschland  ’  and  ‘  Das  friedejauchzende  Teutschland  * 
published  by  Schletterer  (Augsburg,  1864).  Philipp  von  Zesen,  Lemcke, 
p.  268. 

Andreas  Gryphius.  Edition  of  his  Comedies  and  Tragedies  by  Palm 
(Tubingen,  1878  and  1882)  ;  Dramatic  poems,  pub.  by  Tittmann  (Leipz., 
1870)  ;  Lyric  poems,  ed.  Tittmann  (Leipz. 1 1880) ;  Sunday  and  Holiday  Sonnets 
pub.  by  Welti  (Halle,  1883)  in  Braune's  Neudrucke,  in  Nos.  3  and  6.  of  which 
‘  Horribilicribrifax  ’  and  ‘Peter  Squence’  are  printed;  *  Olivetum,’  translated 
by  Strehlke  (Weimar,  1862).  See  Strehlke  in  Herrigs  Archiv,  xxii,  81.  J. 
Hermann  on  A.  G.  (Leipz.,  1851)  ;  O  Klopp,  A.  G.  als  Dramatiker  (Hanover, 
1852);  Klix,  A.  G.  (a  Speech,  Glogau,  1^64);  Th.  Paur,  Zur  Litteratur  und 
Kulturgeschichte,  p.  263  ;  Kollewijn,  Uber  den  Einfluss  des  hollandischen 
Dramas  auf  A  G.  (Amsterdam  and  Heilbronn)  ;  also  Schnorrs  Archiv  ix, 
56,445;  xii.  219;  Zs.  xxv,  130;  xxvi,  244  ;  Aug.  vii,  315. 


X.  The  Dawn  of  Modern  Literature,  pp.  331-401. 

Hettner’s  History  of  German  Literature  in  the  1 8th  century  (4  vols.,  Bruns¬ 
wick,  1862-1870)  begins  at  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  ;  as  dots  Julian  Schmidt, 
Geschichte  des  geistigen  Lebens  in  Deutschland  (2  vols.,  Leipz.,  1862-63). 

1.  Religion  and  Science ,  pp.  335-359. 

Joachim  Jungius.  Monograph  by  Guhrauer  (Stuttg.,  1850).  Balthasar 
Schuppius,  Monograph  by  Vial  (Mainz,  1857)  5  Oelze  (Hamburg,  1863)  ;  Bloch 
(Berl.  1863,  Progr.) ;  see  Weicker,  Schuppius  in  seinem  Verhaltnis  zur 
Padagogik  des  i7n  Jh.  (Weissenfels,  1874,  Progr.)  Reprint  of  ‘  Der  Freund 
in  der  Noth  ’  (Halle,  1878).  Georg  Calixtus  ;  Henke,  G.  C.  and  seine  Zeit,  2 
vols.  (Halle,  1853-60);  see  Henke,  G.  C.  Briefwechsel  (Halle,  1883).  Her¬ 
mann  Conring,  H.  C.  der  Begriinder  der  deutschen  Rechtsgeschichte  (Berlin, 
1870)  ;  Bresslau,  A.  D.  B.  iv.,  446.  Justus  Georg  Schottelius  ;  Schmarsow,  Q.  F. 
23  ;  R.  v.  Raumer,  Geschichte  der  germanischen  Philologie,  p.  72  ;  Lemcke, 
p.  259. 

Roman  Catholics .  Jacob  Balde  ;  Herder’s  Terpsichore,  Sammtliche  Werke, 
ed.  Suphan,  vol.  27  ;  Westermayer,  J.  B.  sein  Leben  und  seine  Werke 
(Munich,  1868).  Friedrich  Spee ,  Trutz-Nachtigall  von  Friedrich  Spee,  ed. 
Balke  (Leipz,  1879);  see  p.  liv.  for  more  works  on  the  subject.  Johann 
Schejjer ,  ed.  Rosenthal,  2  vols.  (Regensburg,  1862)  ;  see  Weimar  Jahrb.  i, 
267;  Schrader,  Angelus  Silesius  und  seine  Mystik  (Erfurt,  1853,  Progr.); 
Kahlert,  A.  S.  (Breslau,  1853)  ;  Kern,  Johann  Scheffler's  Cherubinischer 
Wandersmann  (Leipz.  1866).  Martin  von  Cochem.  He  died,  according  to 
Bern,  a  Bononia  Bibl.  Scriptorum  ordinis  minorum  S  Francisci  Capuccinorum 
(Venet.,  1747),  on  Sept.  10,  1712  ;  and,  according  to  the  sam;  book,  his  Life 
of  Christ  appeared  at  Frankfort  in  1691;  2nd  ed.  at  Frankfort  and  Augs¬ 
burg  1708  and  1710,  &c.  Abraham  a  Sand  a  Clara ,  Monograph  Karajan 
(Vienna,  1867)  :  Sch.  Vortrage  und  Aufsatze,  p.  147;  Zs.  fiir  die  osterr.  Gymn., 


Chapter  X.  381 

1 867,  p.  49  ;  Zs  xxi,  Anz.  279.  Reprint  of  ‘  Auf,  auf,  ihr  Christen  ’  in  the  ‘  Wie¬ 
ner  Neudrucke,’  ed.  A  Sauer,  Heft  i  (Vienna,  1883). 

Protestants.  Paul  Gerhardt.  Historical  and  critical  edition  by  J.  F. 
Bachmann  (Berlin,  1866)  ;  an  edition  arranged  chronologically  according 
to  the  oldest  editions,  by  Godeke  (Leipz.,  1877).  See  Bachmann,  P.  G. 
(Berk,  1863).  Philip  Jacob  Spener\  Hossbach,  Ph.  J.  S.  und  seine  Zeit, 
2  parts,  3rd  ed.  (Berl.,  1861).  Joachim  ATeander.  Iken,  J.  N.,  sc  in 
Leben  und  seine  Lieder  (Bremen,  1880).  Gottfried  Arnold.  Ed.  Ehmann 
(Stuttg ,  1856),  in  two  separate  volumes,  ‘  Sammtliche  geistliche  Lieder,’ 
and  ‘Geistliche  Minne-Lieder,’  comp.  Dibelius,  G.  A.  (Berlin,  1873).  Gerhard 
Tersteegen.  Collected  writings,  8  vols.  (Stuttg.,  1844)  >  Selection  Kapp 
(Essen,  T841).  The  ‘Geistliche  Lieder,’  ed.  Barthel  (Bielefeld,  1853); 
compare  Barthel,  Leben  G.  T.,  (Bielefeld,  1852)  ;  Kerlen,  G.  T.  (Miilheim  a.  d. 
Ruhr,  1853).  Zinzendorf.  His  poems  ed.  by  Knapp  (Stuttg.,  1845);  see 
Vamhagen,  Biographische  Denkmaler,  vol.  v.  (2nd  ed.  Berk,  1846).  Benjamin 
Schmolck.  Hoffmann,  Spenden  zur  Deutschen  Litteraturgeschichte  ii,  73 
Barthold  Heinrich  Brockes  ;  Monograph,  A.  Brandi  (Innsbruck,  1878).  For 
the  Passion  Oratorio,  see  Chrysander,  Handel  i,  433  ;  also  Chrysander  in  the 
A.  D.  B.  xii,  777,  and  Gervinus,  Handel  und  Shakespeare  (Leipz.,  1868),  p.  373, 
472.  Secular  learning.  How  the  various  authors  follow  each  other,  and  which, 
from  the  date  of  their  birth,  or  the  influences  which  affected  them,  are  the  most 
nearly  connected  with  one  another,  can  be  conveniently  seen  in  Guden’s 
‘  Chronologische  Tabellen  zur  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Sprache  und  National 
Litteratur’  (3  parts,  Leipz.,  1831).  For  PufendorJ.  see  von  Treitschke,  Preuss. 
Jahrb.  35,  614;  36,  61.  For  Stieler ,  Schiltcr,  MorhoJ,  see  R.  v.  Raumur,  Ges¬ 
chichte  der  germ  Phil.  For  Leibniz  and  Wolff,  and  later  on  for  Kant,  Fichte, 
Schelling,  and  Hegel,  Uberwegs  Grundriss  der  Gesch.  der  Philosophic  ;  Zeller’s 
Geschichte  der  deutschen  Philosophic  seit  Leibniz  (Munich,  1873).  Schmarsow 
has  republished  the  ‘  unvorgreiflichen  Gedanken,’  with  explanations.  Q.  F.  xxiii. 
Thomasius ,  see  Windelband,  Gesch.  der  neueren  Philosophic  i,  490 ;  Bluntschli, 
Gesch.  des  allgem.  Staatsrechts  und  der  Politik,  p.  181  ;  Biedermann,  Deutsch¬ 
land  im  18  Jh  ii,  348  ;  Roscher,  Gesch.  der  Nationalokonomik,  p.  340;  Prutz, 
Gesch.  der  deutschen  Journali-mus  i,  286  ;  B.  A.  Wagner,  Christian  Thomasius 
(Berk,  1872).  August  Hermann  Francke,  Kramer,  Biographie.  2  vols. 
(Halle,  1880-82)  ;  see  Kramer,  Beitr.  zur  Geschichte  A.  H.  F.  (Halle,  1861), 
with  additions  (Halle,  1875). 

2.  The  Rejinement  oj  Popular  Taste ,  pp.  359-382. 

Idyllic  .Poetry  ;  comp.  X,  3. 

Bombast.  There  is  no  monograph  on  Hoffmannswaldau  ;  on  Lohenstein 
more  than  he  deserves  ;  see  Passavv,  Daniel  Caspar  von  L.  (Meiningen,  1852)  ; 
Kerckhoffs.  Daniel  Casper  von  L.  Tragedies  (Paderborn,  1877);  Conrad 
Muller.  Beitr.  zum  Leben  und  Dichten  D.  C.  von  L.  (Breslau,  1882  ;  Wein- 
hold’s  Germanist  Abh.  i). 

Patriots  and  Satirists.  See  Creizenach  ‘  Armin  in  Poesie  und  Litteraturge¬ 
schichte  ’  Preuss.  Jahrb.  36,  332  ;  Spalatinus  published  a  book  in  1535,  ‘  Von 


382  Bibliography. 

dem  thewern  Deutschen  Fiirsten  Arminio  ;  Ein  kurtzer  auszug  aus  glaubwir- 
digen  latinischen  Historien.’  Hans  Michael  Moscherosch.  Ed.  Dittmar 
(Berl.,  1830) ;  Bobertag  (Berl  and  Stuttg.) ;  see  E.  Schmidt  Zs.  xxiii,  71  ;  R. 
Kohler,  Schnorr’s  Archiv  i,  291  ;  Lorenz  and  Sch.,  Gesc’n.  des  Elsasses,  p.  309. 
Johann  Lauremberg.  Ed.  Lappenberg  (Stuttg.,  1861);  Braune  (Halle,  1879). 
Joachim  Rachel',  see  Aug.  Sach,  J.  R.  (Schleswig,  1869).  Friedrich  von  Logan. 
Ed.  G.  Eitner  (Tubingen,  1872)  ;  Selections  (Leipz.,  1870).  See  Erich  Schmidt, 
Der  Kampf  gegen  die  Mode  in  der  deutschen  Litt.  der  17  Jh.  in  den  Char- 
akteristiken  (Berlin,  1886). 

Popular  Songs.  Collection  ‘  Venus-gartlein  ’  (1659)  ;  ‘  Gesechste  Tugend-  und 
Laster-Rose,’  by  Holdlieb  (Nuremberg,  1665)  ;  ‘  Tugendhafter  Jungfrauen  und 
Junggesellen  Zeit-Vertreiber  ’  (see  Serapeum,  1870,  p.  145);  ‘Hans  Guck  in 
die  Welt’  and  others.  The  poets  mentioned  on  page  370  are  treated  of  by  Lemcke, 
p.  238  in  connection  with  Fleming  ;  the  Bibliothek  deutscher  Dichter  des  17. 
Jh.  of  Wilhelm  Mlilltr  and  Karl  Forster  only  gives  a  selection  from  Schwieger 
(vol.  xi,  Leipz.,  1828).  For  Finckelthaus ,  see  Prohle,  Schnorr’s  Archiv  iii,  66, 
and  vi,  127.  For  Greflinger ,  see  Gruppe,  Leben  und  Werke  deutscher  Dichter 
i,  264;  von  Ottingen  Q.  F.  49  (Strassburg,  1882);  Walther  Anz.  x.  73. 

Christian  Weise.  See  Palm,  Beitr.  zur  Gesch.  der  deutschen  Litt.  (Breslau, 
1877),  p.  1 — 83  ;  comp.  Erich  Schmidt,  Zs.  xxiii,  Anz.  141. 

French  influence,  and  the  opposition  to  it  in  Prussia.  (Frederick  I,  and 
Frederick  William  I).  For  Frederick  I ,  see  Ranke,  Zwolf  Bucher  preussischer 
Geschichte  i,  451.  For  Frederick  William  I.’s  tutor,  Joh.  Fried.  Cramer ,  see 
A.  D.  B.  iv,  548. 

Leipzic  literature.  On  the 1  Acta  Eruditorum'  see  Prutz,  Joumalismus,  p.  275. 
Burkard  Menke,  Monograph  by  Trtitschke  (1842).  Johann  Christian  Gunther. 
Selection  byTittmann  (Leipz.,  1874);  Litzmann  (Leipz.,  Reclamsche  Universal' 
bibliothek,  No.  1295,  96) ;  see  Hoffmann,  Spenden  ii,  115  ;  O.  Roquette,  Leben 
und  Dichten  J.  Chr.  G.  (Stuttg.,  i860)  ;  Kalbeck,  Neue  Beitr.  zur  Biographie,  J. 
Chr.  G.  (Leipz.,  1879)  ;  Litzmann,  Im  Neuen  Reich,  1879  ;  ii,  517  ;  Zur  Text- 
kritik  und  Biographie  J.  Chr.  G.  (Frankfort,  1880).  For  Gottsched,  see  XI,  1. 

English  influence.  See  Kawczynski  Studien  zur  Litteraturgeschichle  des  18 
Jh.  Moralische  Zeitschriften  (Leipz.,  1880) ;  Milberg,  Die  moralischen  Wochen- 
schriften  des  18  Jh.  (Meissen).  Brandi  Zs.  xxvi,  Anz.  p.  26. 

Albrecht  von  Haller.  A.  v.  PI.,  a  Memoir  published  by  an  appointed  com¬ 
mittee  (Bern,  1877)  ;  Adolf  Frey,  A.  v.  H.  und  seine  Bedeutung  fur  die  deutsche 
Litteratur  (Leipz.,  1879) »  A.  v.  H.  Poems,  published  by  Ludwig  Hirzel 
(Frauenfeld,  1882)  ;  A.  v.  H.  Journals  of  his  Journey  to  Germany,  Holland, 
and  England,  1723-1727,  pub.  by  L.  Hirzel  (Leipz.,  1883).  On  Haller’s 
scientific  knowledge,  see  Henle  in  the  ‘  Gottinger  Professoren’  (Gotha,  1872),  p. 
29.  Friedrich  von  Hagedorn.  Ed.  Eschenburg.  5  parts  (Hamburg,  1800)  ; 
Reprint  of  the  ‘  Versuch  einiger  Gedichte  of  1729,  by  Sauer,  in  Seuffert's 
Deutsche  Litteraturdenkmale  des  t8  Jh.  (Heilbronn,  1883)  ;  Characteristic 
letters  in  Helbig’s  Liscow,  p.  44.  See  Schmitt,  in  Henneberger’s  Jahrb.  i,  62. 
Christian  Ludwig  Liscow.  K.  G.  Helbig,  Chr.  L.  L.  (Dresden,  1844')  ;  Lisch, 
Liscows  Leben  (Schwerin,  1845)  ;  Classen,  Uber  Chr.  L.  L.  Leben  and 
Schriflen  (Liibeck,  1846)  ;  Litzmann,  Chr.  L.  L.  (^Hamburg  and  Leipz.  1883). 


383 


Chapter  X. 

3.  The  Novel,  pp.  382-393. 

See  John  Dunlop,  History  of  Fiction  (Edinburgh,  1814);  Cholevius,  Die 
bedeutendsten  deutschen  Romane  des  1 7  Jh.  (Leipz.,  1 866)  ;  Bobertag,  Gesch.  des 
Romans,  ii,  1  (Breslau,  1879);  comp.  E.  Schmidt,  Schnorr’s  Archiv  ix,  405. 

Pastoral  Romances.  Cholevius,  p.  64  ;  where  extracts  are  given  of  Zesen’s 
4  Adriatische  Rosemunde.’ 

Hero  and  love  romances.  For  Bucholtz,  see  Cholevius,  p.  117.  Duke  Anton 
Ulrich  of  Brunswick,  Cholevius,  p.  176.  H.  A.  von  Ziegler  und  Klipphausen , 
Cholevius,  p.  152  ;  Lohenstein,  Cholevius,  p.  31 1.  For  the  characteristics  oi 
the  historical  novels  of  this  time,  see  Gosche  in  his  (afterwards  Schnorr’s) 
Archiv  i,  101. 

Allegorical  Tales.  Johann  Ludwig  Prasch ;  a  German  translation  of  his 
‘Psyche  cretica’  was  published  in  1705. 

Popular  Tales.  On  Martin  von  Cochem  as  the  author  of  Griseldis,  Genovefa 
und  Hirlanda,  Reinhold  Kohler’s  article  on  Griseldis  in  Ersch  und  Gruber’s 
Encyclopadie,  and  in  the  Zs.  f.  deutsche  Phil.  v.  59  ;  Seuffert,  Die  Legende 
von  der  Pfalzgrafin  Genovefa  (Wurtzburg,  1877),  p.  69.  On  the  popular  story 
of  the  invulnerable  Siegfried ,  see  Jacob  Grimm,  Zs.  viii,  1. 

Spanish  Influence.  Hans  Michael  Moscherosch,  see  X,  2.  Grimmelshausen , 
see  Duncker,  Zs.  des  Vereins  f.  hess.  Gesch.,  new  series,  ix,  389.  Zs.  xxvi,  287. 
Ed.  Keller,  4  vols.  (Stuttg  ,  1854,  62);  Kurz,  4  vols.  (Leipz.,  1863-64);  Re¬ 
print  of  4  Simplicissimus  ’  by  Kogel  (Halle,  1880).  School  of  Moscherosch  and 
Grimmelshausen;  Christian  Weise  ;  Reprint  of  the  Erznarren  (Halle,  1878). 

Schelmujfsky .  There  are  several  reprints  ;  see  Zanicke,  Christian  Reuter 
(Leipzic,  1884). 

Robinson  Crusoe.  Hettner,  Robinson  and  the  Robinsonaden  (Berl.  1854). 
The  Island  of  Felsenburg  has  been  reproduced  by  Tieck,  6  vols.  (Breslau,  1827). 
On  the  author  see  Stern,  Histcr.  Tashenb.  5.  Folge  10,  317. 

4.  The  Drama,  pp.  393-401. 

The  Opera.  Arrey  v.  Dommer,  Handbuch  der  Musik-Geschichte  (Leipzig 
1868),  p.  263;  on  the  German  Opera  in  Hamburg,  p.  404:  see  Lindner,  Die 
erste  stehende  deutsche  Oper  (Berl.  1855  ) 

Artistic  and  School  Drama.  For  J.  Chr.  Hallmann,  see  E.  Schmidt, 
A.D.B.  x.  444. — Christian  Weise ,  see  X.  2.  His  peasant  comedy  of  Tobias  und 
Schwalbe  has  been  reproduced  by  R.  Genee  (Beilin  1882).  Gottscheds 
Nothiger  Vorrath  goes  to  1760,  the  Chronologie  des  deutschen  Theaters  (1775, 
by  Chr.  Heinr.  Schmidt)  to  1775.  See  W.  Creizenach,  Zur  Entstehungs- 
geschichte  des  neueren  deutschen  Lustspiels  (Halle  1879).  J.  Bayer,  Von 
Gottsched  bis  Schiller,  3  vols.  (Prague  1863). 

Popular  Drama.  See  ‘  Liebeskampf,  oder  ander  Theil  der  Englischen 
Comodien  und  Tragodien  ’  (1630),  and  Schau-Buhne  Englischer  und  Franzo- 
sischer  Comodianten  (Frankf.  1670).  Godeke,  Grand.  4 10.  Also  Lindner, 
Karl  xii  vor  Friedrichshall,  eine  Haupt  und  Staats- Action  (Dessau  1845).  K. 
Weiss,  Die  Wiener  Haupt  und  Staats-Actionen  (Vienna  1854) :  E.  Schmidt, 


3S4 


Bibliography. 


Zs.  xxv.234. — On  Magister  Velthen  see  Fiirstenau,  Zur  Geschichte  der  Musik 
und  des  Theaters  am  Hofe  zu  Dresden,  I.  (Dresden  1861).  269. 


XI.  The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great,  ii.  pp.  1-141. 

See  Koberstein’s  remarks  on  the  great  influence  of  Prussia  on  German 
literature  since  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century  (Vermischte  Aufsatze 
zur  Litteraturgeschichte  und  Asthetik,  Leipz.  1858,  p.  249);  K.  Bieder- 
mann.  Friedrich  der  Gr.  und  sein  Verhaltnis  zur  Entwicklung  des  deutschen 
Geisteslebens  (Brunswick,  1859)  ;  Julian  Schmidt,  Der  Einfluss  des  preussi- 
schen  Staats  auf  die  deutsche  Litteratur  ( 1 869  ;  Bilder  aus  dem  geistigen  Leben 
unserer  Zeit,  Leipz  1870,  p  42);  H.  Prohle.  Friedrich  d.  Gr.  und  die  deutsche 
Litteratur  (Berl,  1872)  ;  see  Suphan  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil.  v.  238  ;  D.  Jacoby,  F.  d. 
Gr.  und  die  deutsche  Litt.  (Basle,  1875);  Krause,  F.  d.  Gr.  und  die  deutsche 
Poesie  (Halle,  1884). 

1.  Leipzic ,  ii.  pp.  2-19. 

Gottsched’s  Conversations  with  Frederick  the  Great.  Neuestes  aus  der  an- 
muthigen  Gelehrsamkeit,  viii.  122,  389,  532.  Jul.  Schmidt,  Gesch.  des  geis¬ 
tigen  Lebens,  ii.  137. — Gellert’s  Conversations-,  Gellert’s  Sammt.  Schriften  ix. 
(Berl.  1867),  13  et  seq. 

Johann  Christoph  Gottsched.  Danzel,  Gottschedund  seine  Zeit  (Leipz.  1848) : 
For  his  writings  see  Jordens,  Lexicon  deutscher  Dichter  und  Prosaisten  ii.  212. 
See,  too.  M.  Bemays  A.D.B.  ix.  497. 

Christian  Fiirchtegott  Gellert :  ed.  Klee,  10  vols.  (Leipz.  1839).  Briefe  an 
Fraulein  Erdmuth  von  Schonfeld  (Leipz.  1861);  Tagebuch  aus  dem  J.  1761. 
(Leipz.  1862).  See  E  Schmidt,  A.D.B.  viii.  544.  On  Fables,  E.  Schmidt,  Zs. 
xx.  Anz.  38  (compare  p.  380  in  text).  On  the  Bremer  Beitrager  see  the  various 
articles  in  the  A.D.B.,  and  also  Schiller,  Braunschweigs  schone  Litteratur  in 
den  Jahren  1745-1800.  (Wolfenbiittel,  1845b  Also  the  Leipzic  weekly 
journal,  ‘  Der  Jungling,’  communication  by  Erich  Schmidt,  Q,  F.  39,  50-73. 
Letters  of  Giseke  and  J.  A.  Schlegel,  Schnorrs  Archiv.  v.  41,  575.  Gellert's 
followers:  Johann  Friedrich  von  Croncgk\  see  H.  Feuerbach,  Uz  und 
Cronegk  (Leipz  18^6).  Joachim  Wilhelm  von  Brawe,  Monograph  by  A. 
Sauer,  Q.  F.  30  (Strassb.  1878). — Christian  Felix  Weisse  :  Monograph  by  J. 
Minor  (Innspruch,  1880). 

Revival  of  German  Popular  Song-,  see  Hoffmann  von  Fallersleben,  Unsere 
volksthiimlichen  Lieder.  3rd  ed.  (Leipz.  1869). 

2.  Zurich  and  Berlin,  ii.  pp.  19-47. 

For  Swiss  literature  in  general  consult  Morikofer,  Die  Schweizerische  Litt. 
des  18  Jh.  (Leipz.  1861)  :  A.  Frey,  in  the  Neue  Ziircher  -Zeitung,  1882, 
Nos.  207-212. 

For  Bodmer  and  his  circle,  Zehnder,  Pestalozzi  (Gotha  1875):  see  too 
Staudlin,  Briefe  beriihmter  und  edler  Deutschen  an  Bodmer  (Stuttg.,  1794)* 


Chapter  XI.  385 

Reprint  of  Bodmer’s  writings  in  Seuffert’s  Deutsche  Litteraturdenkm.  des  18 
Jh  Nos.  9.  12. 

Frederick  the  Great.  The  works  on  Frederick  the  Great  as  a  writer  are  given 
by  Wiegand,  Q.F.v.  (Strassb.  1874).  See,  too,  Posner,  Zur  litterarischen 
Thatigheit  F.d.G.  in  the  Miscellaneen  zur  Geschichte  Konig  F  d  G.  (Berk,  1878), 
p.  205-490.  It  contains  a  list  of  all  the  editions  and  translations  of  his  books. 
For  his  poems,  Haupt,  Opuscula  III.  137.  Herder’s  Humanitatsbriefe,  and  the 
extracts  he  gives  (Herder’s  Sammtl.  Werke.  ed.  Suphan  xvii,  28  et  seq.)  are  worth 
reading.  For  the  Academy,  see  Bartholmess,  Histoire  philosophique  de 
l’Academiede  Prusse,  2  vols.  (Paris,  1850-51). 

Halle.  See  Waniek,  Immanuel  Pyra,  und  sein  Einfluss  auf  die  deutsche 
Litteratur  des  18  Jh.  (Leipz.  1882).  For  Uz  see  H.  Feuerbach,  Uz  und 
Cronegk  (Leipz.  1866). 

Gleim.  Collected  Works,  ed.  Korte,  7  vols.  (Iialberstadt,  1811-1813), 
vol.  8  (Leipz.  1841);  also  Korte,  Gleims  Ltben  (Halberst.  1811).  He  also 
edited  from  Gleim’s  papers,  Briefe  der  Schweizer  Bodmer,  Sulzer,  Gessner 
(Zurich  1804) ;  Briefe  zwischen  Gleim,  Wm.  Heinse  und  Joh.  v.  Muller,  2  vols. 
(Zurich  1806).  Prohle,  Aus  dem  Briefwechsel  zwischen  Gleim  und  Jacobi 
(Zs.  f.  preuss.  Geschichte  1881,  Heft  11,  12).  See  Schnorr's  Archiv  iv.  9, 
v.  191.  Reprint  of  the  Kriegslieder  by  Sauer,  in  Seuffert  No.  4  (Heilbronn, 
1882). 

Ewald  Christian  von  Kleist :  Critical  edition  by  A.  Sauer,  3  vols.  (Berlin) 
with  Biography  and  letters.  See  Schnorr’s  Archiv.  xi.  457. 

Stilzer  :  Hirzel  an  Gleim  liber  Sulzer  den  Weltweisen,  2  parts  (Zurich  and 
Winterthur  1779).  Isis;  Monatschrift  von  deutschen  und  schweizerischen 
Celehrten,  vols.  v.  vi.  (Zurich,  1807).  See  Weim.  Jahrb.  iv.  164. 

Klopstock.  For  the  editions  of  his  works  see  God  eke,  p.  601.  Bosse, 
Klopstockische  Studien  (Cothen,  i866Progr).  Hamel,  Klopstock-Studien,  3  parts 
(Rostock  1879,  80);  see  Anz.  ix.  46;  Pawel,  Klopstocks  Oden,  Leipziger 
Periode  (Vienna,  1880).  Erich  Schmidt,  Beitrage  zur  Kenntnis  der  Klopstock- 
schen  Jugendlyrik,  Q.F.  39.  Reprint  of  the  first  three  Cantos  of  the  Messiah  in 
their  original  form,  by  Muncker,  in  Seuffert,  No.  11.  (Heilbr.  1883).  A 
Commentary  on  the  Odes  exists,  by  H.  Diintzer,  6  parts  (Leipz.  and  Wenigen- 
Jena,  i86j).  Collections  of  letters ;  Klamer  Schmidt,  Klopstock  und  seine 
Freunde,  2  vols.  (Halberstadt.  1810)  ;  (Clodius)  Auswahl  aus  Klopstocks 
nachgelassenem  Briefwechsel,  part  i  (Leipz.  1821);  Schmidlin,  Klopstocks 
sammtliche  Werke,  3  vols.  (Stuttg.  1839)  v°l-  1  >  Lappenberg,  Briefe  von  und 
an  Klopstock  (Brunswick,  1867).  See  Cropp  in  the  Hamburg  Schriftsteller- 
lexikon  iv.  4-61;  Strauss,  Kleine  Schriften,  new  series  pp.  1-230.  Klopstocks 
Jugendgeschichte :  Erich  Schmidt,  Uber  Klopstock  (Im  neuen  Reich,  1881, 
Nos.  2,  3).  Ein  Hofling  liber  Klopstock  (ibid.  1878,  ii ..  p.  741,  comp. 
Strauss,  Kleine  Schriften,  p.  23) ;  Loise,  Etudes  sur  l’Allemagne  moderne 
(Brussels,  1878),  p.  85-193;  Muncker,  Lessings  peisonliches  und  litt.  Verhaltnis 
zu  Klopstock  (Frankfort,  1880). 

Wieland.  There  is  no  critical  edition.  Wicland  himself  prepared  small 
collections  of  his  prose  works,  or  of  selected  a  d  newest  poems,  and  in  1794- 
1802  he  published  his  collected  works  in  39  vols.  with  6  supplements.  After  his 

VOL.  II.  C  C 


Bibliography. 


386 

death,  Gruber  edited  the  collected  works  in  53  vols.  (Leipz.  1818-28).  Wieland’s 
* Hermann  first  became  known  through  Muncker  (Seufferts  Litteraturdenkm. 
No.  vi.,  Heilbronn,  1882).  For  c  Obcron ,’  there  are  explanations  by  Diintzer, 
and  a  criticism  by  Max  Koch,  Das  Quellenverhaltnis  von  Wielands  Oberon 
(Marburg  1880).  For  the  motives  of  other  poems  see  R.  Kohler  in  Schnorrs 
Archiv  iii.  416,  v.  78.  ’For  the  f  Abderites'  see  Seuffert’s  Discourse,  Wieland’s 
Abderiten  (Berlin,  1878).  Letters.  Auswahl  denkwiirdiger  Briefe,  ed.  Ludwig 
Wieland,  2  vols.  (Vienna  1815)  ;  Ausgewahlte  Briefe,  4  vols.  (Zurich,  1815,  16)  ; 
Eriefe  an  Sophie  von  La  Roche  (Berk,  1820).  Buchner,  Wieland  und  die 
Weidmannsche  Buchhandlung  (Berl.  1871);  Wieland  und  Georg  Joachim  Go- 
schen  (Stuttg.  1874).  Funck,  Beitrage  zur  Wieland-Biographie  (Freib.  1882). 
List  of  other  letters  in  Doling,  Chr.  M.  Wieland  ein  biogr.  Denkmal. 
(Sangerhausen,  1840)  p.  439  ;  Zs.  xx.  358.  See  Gruber,  C.M  W.  geschildert,  2 
vols.  (Leipz.  1819);  Wieland’s  Leben,  4  parts  (Leipz.  1827);  consult  R.  A. 
Bottiger,  Litt.  Zustanden  und  Zeitgenossen,  2  vols.  (Leipz.  1838)  ;  and  Raumer’s 
Hist.  Taschenbuch,  x.  359.  Lobell,  Entwickelung  der  deutschen  Poesie,  vol. 
ii.  (Brunswick,  1858)  is  devoted  to  Wieland  ;  Hallberg,  Wieland  (Paris,  1869). 
For  Wieland’s  youth,  Sch.  Zs.  Anz.  i.  25,  Zs.  xx.  355  ;  Hoche,  Ein  Schulheft 
Wielands,  Jahns  Jahrbueher,  88  (1863),  253-259.  Prohle,  Lessing,  Wieland, 
Heinse  (Berl.  1877).  Julie  Bondeli,  Schadelin,  J.B.  die  Freundin  Rousseaus 
und  Wielands  (Bern,  1838);  E.  Bodemann,  J.  v.  B.  and  ihr  Freundeskreis 
(Hanover,  1874). 

3.  Lessings  ii.  pp.  47-82. 

Collected  Editions.  G.  E.  Lessings  Schriften,  6  parts,  (Berl.  1753-55); 
Lustspiele  von  G.E.L.,  2  parts  (Berl.  1767);  Trauerspiele  (Berl.  1772) ;  G.E.L. 
Vermischte  Schriften,  parti.  (Berl.  1771)’  parts  2-4  (Berl.  1784-85);  parts 
5-30  (Berl.  1791-94)  part  31  (Lessings  Leben,  von  Schink,  Berl.  1825).  Ed. 
Schink,  32  vols.  (Berl.  1825-28)  ;  K.  Lachmann,  13  vols.  (Berl.  1838-40);  W. 
von  Maltzahn,  12  vols.  (Leipz.  1853-57;  Lachmann’s  edition  revised,  omitting 
all  letters  to  Lessing)  ;  Hempel’s  edition,  so  named  from  the  publisher,  a  very 
valuable  one,  20  vols.  (Berl.,  no  date).  Consult  vol.  19,  673.  Redlich, 
Lessing-Bibliothek.  B.  A.  Wagner  gave  supplements  :  Lessing  Forschungen 
Berlin  1881);  Zu  Lessings  spanischen  Studien  (Berl.,  1883  Progr).  Lessing’s 
correspondence  is  given  most  fully  in  Hempel’s  edition  ;  see,  too,  Schnorr’s 
Archiv  xi.  517.  A.  Schone  published  Lessing's  letters  to  his  wife  (Leipz.  1870); 
Wattenbach  published  letters  from  his  circle  of  friends,  Neues  Lausitzisches 
Magazin  38.  193. 

Biographies  and  Criticisms.  K.  G.  Lessing,  G.  E.  L.’s  Leben,  3  Parts  (Berl. 
1 793?  95)5  Fr.  Schlegel,  Lessing’s  Geist  aus  seinen  Schriften,  3  vols.  (Leipz. 
1804)  ;  Schink,  Charakteristik  L.  (Leipz.  1817);  L.  Leben  (Berl.  1825)  ;  Danzel 
und  Guhrauer,  G.  E.  L.  sein  Leben  und  seine  Werke,  2  vols.  (Leipz.  1850,  54. 
2nd  ed.  by  v.  Maltzahn  and  Boxberger,  Berl.  1880-81)  ;  Lobell,  Entwickelung 
der  deutschen  Poesie,  vol.  3,  (1865'),  Pub.  by  Kobenstein;  Sch.  in  the  Deutsche 
Rundschau,  Feb.  1881,  by  Eiich  Schmidt,  Lessing  i.  (Berlin,  1884)  ;  Popular 
accounts,  by  A.  Stahr  (Berl.  1859);  Crousle  (Paris,  1863);  Sime  (London, 
1S77);  Zimmern  (London,  1878);  Fischer  (Stuttg.  1888) ;  Diintzer  (Leipz. 
1882).  Consult  Cherbuliez,  Etudes  de  litterature  (Paris,  1873),  pp.  1-119; 


Chapter  XT.  387 

Loise,  Etudes,  p.  194. — Hebler,  Lessing-Studien  (Bern,  1862);  Philosophische 
Aufsatze  (Leipz.  1869),  p.  79.  Peter,  Lessing  and  S.  Afra  (Deutsche  Rundschau, 
March  1881  ;  see  Schnorr’s  Archiv  x.  285) ;  Uhde,  Lessing  und  die  Komodi- 
anten  der  Neuberin,  (Hammann  und  Henzen  Dramaturgische  Blatter,  Parts  7, 
8);  O.  v.  Heinemann,  Zur  Erinnerung  an  G.  E.  L.  (Leipz.  1870);  Prohle, 
Lessing,  Wieland,  Heinse  (Berl.  1877).  —  Lehmann,  Forschungen  liber  Lessing's 
Sprache  (Brunswick,  1875);  see  E.  Schmidt,  Anz.  ii,  38;  M.  v.  Waldberg, 
Studien  zu  Lessing’s  Stil  (Berl.  1882). 

Philosophy  and  Theology.  Guhrauer,  Lessing’s  Erziehung  des  Menschen- 
geschlechts  (Berl.  1841);  H.  Ritter,  t’ber  Le>sing’s  philosophische  und 
religiose  Grundsatze  (Gott.  1847);  Schwarz,  L.  als  Theolog  (Halle,  1854); 
Dilthey  in  the  Preuss.  Jahrb.  19,  117,  271  (comp.  20,  268,  439) ;  Zeller,  L.  als 
Theolog,  Vortrage  und  Abhandlungen,  2,  283-327;  Rehorn,  Lessing’s  Stellung 
zur  Philosophic  des  Spinoza  (Frankf.  1877)  5  Witte,  die  Philosophic  unserer 
Dichterheroen  I  (Bonn,  i88o\  25-234  ;  Monckeberg,  L.  als  Freimaurer  (Hamb. 

1880) .  Reimarus,  D.  F.  Strauss,  H.  S.  Reimarus  und  seine  Schutzschrift  fur 
die  verniinftigen  Verehrer  Gottes  (Leipz.  1862). —  Goeze,  G.  R.  Rope,  J.  M. 
Goeze,  eine  Rettung  (Hamburg,  i860) ;  Boden,  Lessing  und  Goeze  (Leipz.  and 
Heildeberg,  1862). 

/Esthetic.  Lessing’s  Laokoon,  ed.  H.  Bliimner,  2nd.  ed.  (Berl.  1880) ;  see 
Sch.,  Zs.  xx,  Anz.  85. —  Winckelmann.  K.  J.  Winckelmann,  sein  Leben,  seine 
Werke  und  seine  Zeitgenossen,  2  vols.  (Leipz.  1866-72).  Cosack,  Materialien  zu 
G.  E.  L.  Hamburgischer  Dramaturgic  (Paderb.  1876);  Schroter  und  Thiele,  L. 
Hamb.  Dramat.  erlautert  (Halle,  1877);  see  Bollman,  Anmerkungen  zu  L. 
Hamb.  Dram.  (Berl.  1874) ;  Gotschlich,  L.’s  ArLtotelische  Studien  (Berl. 
1876) ;  Baumgart,  Aristoteles,  Lessing  und  Goethe  (Leipz.  1877) ;  E.  Schmidt, 
Anz.  v.  133. 

Dramas.  Nodnagel,  L’s.  Dramen  eilautert  (Darmstadt,  1842)  ;  Diintzer,  L. 
als  Dramatiker  und  Dramaturg  (Wenigen-Jena,  1862);  Sierke,  L.  als  angehender 
Dramatiker  (Konigsberg,  1869  Diss.) ;  Motz,  L.’s  Bedeutung  fur  das  deutsche 
Drama  (Basle,  1872). — On  the  influence  of  Miss  Sara  Sampson ,  see  Sauer, 
Q.  F.  xxx.  80. — Minna  von  Barmhelm ,  Diintzer  Erl. —  Emilia  Galotti ,  Hebler, 
Lessingiana  (Bern,  1877)  >  B-  Arnold,  Lessing’s  Em.  Gal.  in  ihrem  Verhaltnis 
zur  Poetik  des  Aristoteles  und  zur  Hamb.  Dramat.  (Chemnitz,  1 8  So  Progr.);  see  Zs. 
xxv.  241,  Diintzer  Erl. — Nathan  der  Weise ,  see  Naumann  Litteratur  iiber  Les¬ 
sing’s  Nathan  (Dresden,  1867  Progr.);  Bohtz,  Lessing's  Protestantismus  und  Na¬ 
than  der  Weise  (Gottingen,  1854);  Wackernagel,  Kl.  Schriften,  ii.  452  ;  Strauss, 
Lessings  N.  d.  W.  (Berl  1864);  Caro,  Lessing  und  Swift  (Jena,  1869);  Sch., 
Vortrage  und  Aufsatze,  p.  328 ;  Pabst,  Vorlesungen  iiber  Nathan  (Bern, 

1881) ;  Diintzer  Erl.  For  Boccaccio’s  tale,  see  Landau,  Quellen  des  De- 
camerone  (Vienna,  1869),  PP-  62,  142  ;  for  the  similar  story,  Wackernagel, 
p.  471  (Gosche  Jahrb.  f.  Litteraturgesch.  i.  199).  There  is  a  fine  reprint  ot 
the  first  edition  of  Nathan  (Berl.  1881).  Schiller’s  edition,  Schiller’s  sammtl. 
Schriften,  15  b,  85  Godeke. 

For  Nicolai  and  Mendelssohn  see  below,  XI.  5.  Gleim  and  Kleist  have  been 
mentioned  above,  XI.  2.  For  Denis ,  see  von  Hofmann-Wellenhof,  Michael 
Denis  (Innsbruck,  1881).  For  Abbt ,  Thomas  Abbts  vermischte  Werke,  6  vols. 

c  C  2 


388 


Bibliography. 


(Berl.  1772-81)  ;  Nicolai,  Ehrengedachtnis  Th.  Abbts(Berl.  1767)  ;  Herder,  ii. 
249  ;  Prutz,  Litterar.  Histor.  Taschenb.  1846,  p.  371.  For  Johann  Timotheus 
Hermes,  Prutz,  Menschen  and  Bucher  (Leipz.  1S62),  ii,  1.  et  seq. 

4.  Herder  and  Goethe ,  ii.  pp.  82-114. 

Justus  Moser :  Sammtliche  Werke,  ed.  Abeken,  10  Vols.  (Beil.  1842,  43), 
compare  Kreyssig,  J.  M.  (Berl.  1857). 

Hamann\  Schriften,  ed.  Friedrich  Roth,  8  Parts  (Berl.  1821-43);  see 
Gildemeister,  Hamann’s  Leben  und  Schriften,  6  vols.  (Gotha,  1857-73); 
Minor,  J.  G.  Hamann  in  seiner  Bedeutung  fiir  die  Sturm  und  Drangperiode 
(Frankf.  1881). 

Herder.  Sammtliche  Werke,  45  vols.  (Stuttg.  1805-20),  60  vols.  (Stut'g. 
1827-30),  not  good  ;  an  excellent  edition  is  coming  out  by  Bernhard  Suphan 
(Berl.  1877).  Separate  works,  ‘  Denkmal  Johann  Winckel maims ,’  by  Herder, 
written  1778,  publ.  by  Albert  Duncker  (Cassel,  1882).  ‘  Cid ,’  with  notes  by 

Diintzer  (i8f>o)  ;  Reinhold  Kohler,  Herders  Cid  und  seine  franzosische  Quelle 
(Leipz.  1867);  Herders  Cid,  die  franzosische  und  spanische  Quelle,  zusammen- 
gestellt  von  Vogelin,  vHeilbr.  1879).  ‘  Legenden,'  Diintzer,  Erl — Letters.  Aus 

Herder’s  Nachlass,  3  vols.  (Frankf.  1856,  57).  Herder’s  Reise  nach  Italien 
(Giessen,  1859).  Von  un^  an  Herder,  3  vols.  (Leipz.  1861,  62)  ;  all  published 
by  H.  Diintzer  and  F.  G.  von  Herder;  see  too  G.enzboten,  1867,  I.  289.  Im 
neuen  Reich,  1879,  No.  26,  1880,  I.  685. — Biographical  and  literary  authori¬ 
ties,  Danz  and  Gruber,  Charncteristik  J.  G.  von  Herders  (Leipz.  1805);  Caro¬ 
line  von  Herder,  Erinnerungen  aus  dem  Leben,  J.  G.  v.  H.,  2  vols.  (Strttg. 
1820);  Weimarisches  Herder  Album  (Jena,  1845);  J.  G.  v.  H.  Lebensbild 
Herders  early  Correspondence  and  writings,  6  vols.  (Erlangen,  1846);  Julian 
Schmidt,  on  Herder  in  the  Bibliothek  der  deutschen  Nationallitteratur  dts  18 
und  19  Jh.  (Leipz.,  Brockhaus)  ;  and  in  the  Preuss.  Jahrb.  44,  536;  Ch.  Joret, 
Herder  et  la  renaissance  litteraire  en  A'lemagne  au  i8e  siecle  (Paris,  1875). 
R.  Haym,  Herder  nach  seinem  Leben  und  seinen  Werken,  vol.  i  (Berl.  1880)  ; 
Suphan.  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil.  iii.  365,  458,  490,  iv.  225,  vi.  45,  165  ;  Preuss.  Jahrb, 
43,  85,  142,  411;  50,  593.  See  too  Bachtold,  Aus  dem  Herderschen  Hause 
(Berl.  1881);  A.  Werner,  Herder  als  Theologe  (Berl.  1871);  Renner,  Herder’s 
Verhaltnis  zur  Schule  (Gott.  1871  Progr.);  Morres,  H.  als  Padagog  (Eisenach); 
Lehmann,  H.  in  seiner  Bedeutung  fiir  die  Geographie  (Berl.  1883  Progr.); 
R.  Lindemann,  Eeitrage  zur  Charakteiistik  K.  A.  Bottigers  und  seiner  Steliung 
zu  Herder  (Gorlitz,  1883). 

Goethe's  Youth.  In  general,  see  XII.  1.  Goethe’s  Works  and  letters  before 
he  settled  at  Weimar :  (S.  Hirzel),  Der  junge  Goethe,  3  vols.  (Leipz.  1875).  See 
too,  Scholl,  Briefe  und  Aufsatze  von  Goethe  aus  den  Jahren  1766  bis  1786  (2nd 
ed.  Weimar,  1857);  see  Sch.  Aus  Goethe’s  Friihzeit,  Q.  F.  34  (Strassb.  1879); 
Minor  and  Sauer,  Studien  zur  Goethe-Philologie  (Vienna,  1 880).  Goethe’s  Auto¬ 
biography,  ‘  Dichtung  und  Wahrheit,’  comes  down  to  1775  ;  it  is  well  to  con¬ 
sult  Lopers’  remarks  in  his  edition  (Berl.  Hempel). — For  Goethe’s  family,  and 
some  of  his  youthful  friends,  consult  Kriegk,  Die  Briider  Senckenberg  (Frankf. 
1869),  p.  313;  O.  Volger,  Goethes  Vaterhaus  (Frankf.  1863);  Weismann, 


Chapter  XI. 


3^9 


Aus  Goethe’s  Knabenzeit  (Frankf.  1846).  Goethe's  Mother,  Frau  Rath , 
Briefwechsel  von  Katharina  Elisabeth  Goethe,  ed.  R.  Keil  (Leipz.  1871), 
see  v.  Biedermann,  Goethe  Forschungen  (Frankf.  1879),  p.  385.  Schnorr’s 
Archiv  iii.  109. — The  ‘  Mitschuldigen,'  Sch.  Zs.  xxiv.  231. — Goethe’s  work  as 
a  lawyer,  Kriegk,  Deutsche  Kulturbilder  aus  dem  18  Jh.  (Leipz.  1874), 
p.  263,  Goethe  als  Rechtsanwalt. — The  Frankfurter  gelehrte  Anzeigen  of 
1772  are  reprinted  in  Seuffert's  Litteraturdenkm.  (Fleilbronn,  1883)  ;  a  valuable 
authority  for  Goethe’s  development. — Gotz,  ed.  Bachtold  (Freib.  1882);  the 
two  oldest  editions  of  Gotz  are  compared  in  Minor  and  Sauer,  p.  117;  see 
Diintzer,  Gotz  und  Egmont  (Brunswick,  1854),  Erl.  For  the  historical 
Gotz,  Wegele,  Zs.  f.  Culturgesch.  1874,  p.  129.  For  chivalrous  Dramas,  see 
O.  Brahm,  Das  deutsche  Ritterdrama  cies  18  Jh.  Q.  F.  40  (Stra>sb.  1880).  For 
Shakespeare’s  influence,  see  Koberstein,  Vermischte  Aufsatze,  p-  163  ;  R.  Genee, 
Geschichte  der  Shakespeareschen  Dramen  in  Deutschland  (Leipz.  1870). — 
Prometheus ,  Diintzer,  Goethe’s  Prometheus  uni  Pandora  (Leipz.  1874);  the 
original  text  publ.  by  Erich  Schmidt,  in  the  Goethe-Jahrbuch,  i.  290. — Clavigo 
and  Stella ,  Diintzer  Erl.  For  Stella,  see  Sch.  in  the  Deutsche  Rundschau,  vi  66 ; 
for  Clavigo,  Danzel,  Gesnmmelte  Aufsatze  (Leipz.  1855),  p.  152.  Wert  her , 
Diintzer,  Erl. ;  Erich  Schmidt,  Richardson,  Rousseau,  Goethe  (Jena,  1875) ; 
Appell,  Werther  und  seine  Zeit,  3rd  ed.  (Oldenburg,  1882). 

5.  The  Literary  Revolution  a7id  the  Illuminati ,  ii.  pp.  114-141. 

J.  M.  R.  Lenz.  Gesammelte  Schriften,  ed.  Tieck,  3  vols.  (Berl.  1828)  :  ‘  Der 
Waldbruder,’  reprint  by  M.  v.  Waldberg  (Berl.  1882)  ;  Drei  Gedichte,  prepared 
for  Christmas,  1882,  by  K.  Weinhold;  see  A.  Stober,  Der  Dichter  Lenz  und 
Friedericke  von  Sesenheim  (Basle,  1842)  ;  E.  Dorer-Egloff,  J.  M.  R.  Lenz  und 
seine  Schriften  (Baden,  1857);  O-  F.  Gruppe,  R.  Lenz,  Leben  und  Werke 
(Berl.  1861) ;  P.  T.  Falck,  Der  Dichter  J.  M  R.  Lenz  in  Livland  (Winterthur, 
1878)  ;  E.  Schmidt,  Lenz  und  Klinger,  zwei  Dichter  der  Geniezeit  (Berl.  1878). 

F.  Af.  Klinger.  Theater,  4  Parts  (Riga,  1786-87)  ;  Neues  Theater  (Leipz. 
1790);  Werke,  12  vols.  (Konigsb.  1809-15;  Sammtl.  Werke,  12  vols.  (Stuttg. 
184?);  see  M.  Rieger,  Klinger  in  der  Sturm  and  Drangperiode  (Darmstadt, 
1880);  E.  Schmidt,  Lenz  und  Klinger  (Berl.  1878);  O.  Erdmann,  Uber 
Klingers  dramatische  Dichtungen  (Konigsb.  1877)  ;  on  the  attitude  of  Klinger 
towards  Kant’s  philosophy,  see  Altpreuss.  Monatschrift,  15,  37.  There  is  a  re¬ 
print  of  the  play  ‘  Sturm  und  Drang,’  in  the  Reclamsche  Universalbibliothek, 
No.  248,  and  of  the  tragedy  ‘Otto’  in  Seuffert’s  Litteraturdenkm.  Part  1. 
(Heilbronn,  1881). 

H.  L.  Wagner.  E.  Schmidt.  H.  L.  W.  Goethe's  Jugendgenosse,  2nd  ed. 
(Jena,  1879).  Reprint  of  his  ‘  Kindermorderin,’  by  August  Sauer,  J.  M.  R.  Lenz 
und  H.  L.  Wagner  (Berl.  and  Stuttg.),  p  283,  and  ibid.,  p.  359,  the  Satire 
‘  Prometheus  Deukalion  and  seine  Recensenten,’  once  attributed  to  Goethe. 
Seuffert,  No.  13  (Heibroun,  1883). 

Alalcr  Muller.  Werke,  3  vols.  (Heidelb.  1825),  see  B.  Seuffert.  M.  M. 
(Berl.  1877).  Reprint  of  ‘  Fausts  Leben,’  Seuffert’s  Litteraturdenkm.  No.  3 
(Heilb.  1881). 


39° 


Bibliography . 


Graf  Torring.  O.  Brahm,  Das  deutsche  Ritterdrama  des  18  Jh. ;  Studien  iiber 
J.  A.  v.  Torring,  seine  Vorganger  und  Nachfolger,  Q.  F.  40  (Strassb.  1880). 

Schiller.  See  below,  XII.  3.  For  his  political  background,  Adolf  Wohlwill, 
Weltbiirgerthum  und  Vaterlandsliebe  der  Schwaben  (Hamburg,  1875). 

C.  F.  D.  Schubart.  Gesammelte  Schriften,  8  vols.  (Stuttg.  1839,  40) ;  D.  F. 
Strauss,  Schubart’s  Leben  in  seinen  Briefen,  2  vols.  (Berl.  1849);  A.  Wohlwill, 
Schnorr’s  Archiv  vi.  343;  ix.  1 7  i ;  x.  188,  282. 

F[.  C.  Boie.  Weinhold,  H.  C.  B.  (Halle,  1868);  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil.  i.  378. — 
Martin  Miller ,  E.  Schmidt,  Deutsche  Rundschau,  28,  450  ;  Kamprath,  Das 
Siegwartfieber  (Wiener  Neustadt,  1877  Progr.). — L.  H.  C.  Holty,  Ed.  Karl 
Halm  (Leipz.  1869)  5  Schnorr’s  Archiv.  7.  187. — Stolberg ,  Der  Briider  C.  and  F. 
L.  Grafen  zu  Stolberg  gesammelte  Werke,  20  vols.  (Hamburg,  1820,  25)  ;  Alfred 
Nicolovius,  F.  L.  Graf  zu  S.  (Mainz,  1846)  ;  W.  v.  Bippen,  Eutiner  Skizzen 
(Weimar,  1859),  PP-  52?  185.  T.  Menge,  Der  Graf  F.  L.  S.  and  seine  Zeitge- 
nossen,  2  vols.  (Gotha,  1862)  ;  Hennes,  F.  L.  Graf  zu  S.  und  Herzog  Peter  F. 
L.  von  Oldenburg  (Mainz,  1870).  Stolberg  in  den  zwei  letzten  Jahrzehnten 
seines  Lebens  (Mainz,  1875);  aus  F.  L.  von  S.  Jugendjahren  (Frankf.  1876); 
J.  Jansen,  F.  L.  Giaf  zu  S.  2  vols.  (Freib.  1877);  2nd  ed.  in  1  vol.  (Freib. 
1882).— J.  H.  Voss.  Sammtl.  poet.  Werke,  ed.  Abraham  Voss  (Leipz.  1835); 
Reprint  of  the  Odyssee  of  1781,  by  M.  Bernays  (Stuttg.  1881  ;  also  E.  Schmidt, 
Zs.  26,  Anz.  52  ;  also  Schroter,  Gesch.  der  deutschen  Homer-Ubersetzung, 
Jena,  1882)  ;  see  the  letters  with  notes,  pub.  by  A.  Voss,  4  vols.  (Halberstadt, 
1829-33,  containing  the  beautiful  notice  of  Ernestine  Voss)  ;  Wilhelm  Herbst, 
J.  H.  V.,  3  vols  (Leipz.  1872-76)  ;  Julian  Schmidt,  Preuss.  Jahrb.  38.  628.  On 
the  Homer,  A.  W.  Schlegel,  10,  115.  See  Prutz,  Der  Gottinger  Dichterbund 
(Leipz.  1841).  * 

G.  A.  Burger.  His  poems  were  published  first  at  Gottingen,  1778.  Best 
edition  by  A.  Sauer  (Berlin  and  Stuttgart,  s.  a.)  Sammtl.  Schriften,  4  vols. 
(Gott.  1796-98);  Selection  by  Grisebach  (Berl.  1872);  see  Daniel  Burger  on 
the  school  (Halle,  1845  Progr.)  ;  Prohle,  G.  A.  B.  (Leipz.  1856);  Ebeling,  G. 

A.  B.  und  Elise  Hahn  (Leipz.  1868) ;  Godeke,  G.  A.  B.  in  Gottingen  und  Gellie- 
hausen  (Hanover,  1873) ;  A.  Strodtmann,  Briefe  von  und  an  G.  A.  B.,  4  vols. 
(Berl.  1874). — For  ‘  Lenore,’  Wackernagel,  Kleine  Schriften,  ii,  399. 

/.  K.  Lavater.  Gesner,  Lavaters  Lebensbeschreibung,  3  vols.  (Win- 
therthur,  j8o2,  3);  Hegner,  Beitrage  zur  naheren  Kenntnis  und  wahren 
Darstellung  J.  K.  L.  (Leipz.  1836).  Bodemann,  J.  K.  L.  (Gotha,  1856); 
Ehmann,  Briefwechsel  zwischen  Lavater  und  Hasenkamp  (Basle,  1870);  E. 
Schmidt,  Im  neuen  Reich,  1873,  i.  p.  368^. 

M.  Claudius.  Ed.  Redlich  (Gotha,  1871);  Ungedruckte  Jugendbriefe  des 
Wandsbecker  Boten,  ed.  Redlich  (Hamb.  1881)  ;  cf.  Heibst,  M.  C.  der  Wandsb. 

B.  (Gotha,  1857)  ;  Monckeberg,  (Hamb.  1869). 

F.  H.  Jacobi.  Werke,  6  vols.  (Leipz.  1812-24;  Auserlesener  Briefwechsel, 
2  vols.  (Leipz.  1825-27  ;  Zoppritz,  Aus  F.  H.  J.  Nachliss,  2  vols.  (Leipz.  1869) ; 
Briefe  an  Bouterwek,  pub.  by  Meyer  (Gott.  1868);  Deycks,  F.  H.  J.  im  Ver- 
haltnis  zu  seiner  Zeitgenossen  (Frank.  1848);  Zirngiebl,  F.  H.  J.  Leben, 
Dichten  und  Denken  (Vienna,  1867);  Harms,  Uber  die  Lehre  von  F.  H.  J. 
(Berl.  1876  Abh.  der  Akad.).  A.  Holtzmann,  Uber  Eduard  Allv»  ills  Brief- 


Chapters  XI-XII. 


391 


sammlung  (Jena,  1878).—/.  G. Jacobi:  E.  Martin,  Ungedruckte  Briefe  von  und 
an  J.  G.  J.,  Q.  F.  2  (Strassb.  1 874),  see  Zs.  xx,  324 ;  Daniel  Jacoby  in  the  A.  D.  B , 
J3>  587. 

Wilhelm  Heinse.  W.  H.  sammtliche  Schriften,  ed.  H.  Laube,  10  vols. 
(Leipz.  1838);  Prohle,  Lessing,  Wieland,  Heinse,  (Berl.  1877);  J.  Schober, 
W.  H.  (Leipz.  1882)  ;  Schnorr’s  Archiv  x.  39,  372,  479. 

Berlin.  Berlin  not  only  possessed  a  Public,  but  the  word  first  arose  there, 
as  is  shown  in  Gottsched’s  Neuestes  aus  der  anmuth.  Gelehrsamkeit,  x,  751, 
in  the  year  1760:  ‘  that  portion  of  the  German  world  (in  Berlin  it  is  now  called 
Public)  which  has  hitherto  admired  him.’ —  C.  F.  Nicolai,  v.  Gockingk,  Nico¬ 
lais  Leben  und  litterar.  Nachl.  (Berl.  1820)  ;  Foss,  in  Schnorr’s  Archiv  ii.  374  ; 
J.  Minor,  Lessing’s  Jugendfreunde  (Berl.  and  Stuttg.),  p.  275.  On  the  Ber¬ 
liner  Monatschrift ,  see  Meyen,  in  Prutz  Litterarhistor.  Taschenb.  1847,  P-  I5I* 
Moses  Mendelssohn.  Gesammelte  Schriften,  7  vols.  (Leipz.  1843-45). 


XII.  Weimar,  ii.  pp.  142-228. 

Anna  Amalia.  Carl  Freiherr  v.  Beaulieu-Marconnay,  Anna  Amalia,  Carl 
August  and  der  Minister  von  Fritsch  (Weimar,  1874). — Karl  August'.  Wegele, 
K.  A.  (Leipz.  1850);  A.  D.  B.,  15,  338.  Scholl,  Carl-August-Biichlein 
(Weimar,  1857):  specially  Droysen,  C.  A.  und  die  deutsche  Politik  (Jena, 

1857-) 

1.  Goethe ,  ii.  pp.  145-170. 

Collected  Editions.  S.  Hirzel  gives  a  chronological  table  of  all  Goethe’s 
writings,  Verzeichnis  einerGoethe-Bibliothek,ed.  by  Ludwig  Hirzel  (Leipz.  1884)  > 
see  too,  W.  v.  Biedermann  from  time  to  time  in  Schnorrs  Archiv.  The  first 
attempt  at  a  collected  edition  of  Goethe’s  works  was  made  by  the  Berlin  Look- 
seller,  Himburg  (vols.  I,  II,  1775;  HI,  1776  ;  a  3rd  ed.  in  4  vols.  1 779).  Goethe's 
own  editions,  ‘Schriften,’  8  vols.  (Leipz.  by  Goschen,  1787-90):  ‘  Neue 
Schriften,’  7  vols.  (Berl.,  by  Unger,  1792-1800):  the  three  editions,  by  Cotta, 
of  the  ‘Werke’  (Tubingen  or  Stuttg.  and  Tubingen):  12  vols.  1806-8,  with 
1810,  the  ‘  Wahlverwandschaften  ’  (which  had  appeared  alone  in  1809)  as 
vol.  13;  20  vols.  1 8 1 5 — t 9  ;  40  vols.  (‘  Vollstandige  Ausgabe  letzter  Hand,’ 
1827-31).  Lastly,  ‘Goethe’s  Nachgelassene  Werke,’  15  vols.  1832-34;  with 
5  further  vols.  1842.  ‘  Goethe’s  poetische  und  prosaische  Werke  (Stuttg.  and 

Tubingen,  Cotta,)  2  vols.,  and  Hempels  ed.  (Berl.)  in  36  vols.,  with  notes  and 
explanations  by  W.  v.  Biedermann,  H.  Duntzer,  S.  Kalischer,  G.  v.  Loper,  and 
F.  Strehlke.  A  new  ed.  is  in  progress,  3  vols.  published. 

Biographies,  Characteristics ,  etc.  Abeken,  Ein  Stiick  aus  G.  Leben  (Berl. 
1845):  G.  in  den  Jahren  1771-75  (2  ed.  Hanover, 1865) ;  Albrecht,  Zum 
Sprachgebrauch  Goethes  (Crimmitschau,  1876  Progr.) ;  Bernays,  liber  Kritik 
und  Geschichte  des  Goetheschen  Textes  (Berl.  1866);  A.  D.  B.  ix  413-438, 
(separately  printed  Leipz.  1880)  ;  W.  v.  Biedermann,  Goethe-Forschungen 
(Frankf.  1879);  H.  Blaze  de  Bury,  Les  Maitresses  de  Goethe  (Paris,  1873); 
Bossert,  Goethe  (Paris,  1872);  G.  et  Schiller  (Paris,  1873)  ;  Bratranek,  Zwei 
Polen  in  Weimar  (Vienna,  1870);  Braun,  G.  im  Urtheile  seiner  Zeitgenossen 


392 


Bibliography. 


(Berl.  1883);  C.  A.  H.  Burkhardt,  Das  Tiefurter  Journal  (Grenzboten,  1871, 
ii.  281);  Das  herzogl.  Liebhabertheater  (ibid.  1873,  iii.  1);  Clas-ische  Find- 
linge  (ibid.  1873,  iii.  293,  iv.  79,  91,  1874,  i.  201);  Carus,  Goethe 
(Vienna,  1863)  ;  Diezmann,  Aus  Weimars  Glanzzeit  (Leipz.  1855);  G.  und 
die  lustige  Zeit  in  Weimar  (Leip.  1837);  Goethe-Schiller  Museum  (Leipz. 
1S5S);  Weimar  Album  (Leipz.  i85o)  ;  Diintzer,  Studien  zu  Goethes  Werken 
(Elberfeld,  1849);  Neue  Goethestudien  (Nuremberg,  1861);  P'rauenbilder 
aus  G.’s  Jugendzeit  (Stuttg.  1852)  Freundesbildtr  aus  G.’s  Leben  (Leipz. 
1853) ;  Aus  G.’s  Freundeskreise  ^  Brunswick,  1868);  G.’s  Leben  (Leipz.  1880); 
Fielitz,  G.  studien  (^Wittenberg,  1881,  Progr.) ;  L.  Geiger,  G.  Jahrbuch 
(Frankfort,  each  year  since  1880);  G.  Gerland,  Uber  G.’s  historiche  Stellung 
(Nordhausen,  1855);  Godeke,  G.’s  Leben  und  Schriften  (Stuttg.  1874);  H. 
Grimm,  Goethe  (Berl.  4th  ed.  1888)  ;  Grosse,  G.  und  das  deutsche  Alterthum 
(Dramburg,  1875,  Diss.)  ;  Henkel,  Das  Goethesche  Gleichniss  (Halle,  1886, 
Progr.);  Keil,  Vor  hundert  Jahren,  2  vols.  (Leipz.  1875);  Goethe,  Weimar 
und  Jena  in  1806  (Leipz.  1882);  Lehmann,  G.’s  Sprache  und  ihr  Geist  (berl. 
1852);  Lewes,  Life  an  1  Works  of  G.  (London,  1855)  !  Mezieres,  W.  Goethe, 
2d  ed.  2  vols.  (Paris,  1874);  Minor  and  Sauer,  Studien  zur  G.  Philologie 
(Vienna,  1880);  K.  W.  Muller,  G.’s  letzte  litte.arische  Thatigkeit  (Jei.a,  1832); 
Fr.  v.  Muller,  G.  in  seiner  praktischen  Wirksamkeit  (Weimar,  1832);  Nico- 
lovius,  Uber  Goethe  (Leipz.  1828) ;  Pietsch,  G.  als  Freimaurer  (Leipz.  18S0) ; 
Lin  Englander  (Henry  Crabb  Robinson)  fiber  deutsches  Geistedeben,  von  K. 
Eitner  (Weimar,  1871)  ;  H.  Rollett,  Die  G.  Eildnisse  (Vienna,  1883);  Rosen- 
kranz,  G.  und  seine  Werke  (Konigsb.  1847)  ;  J.  W.  Schafer,  G.’s  Leben,  2  vols. 
(3rd  ed.  Leipz.  1877);  Scholl,  G.  in  Hauptziigen  seines  Lebens  und  Wirkens 
(Berl.  1882) ;  A.  Stahr,  Weimar  und  Jena,  2  vols.  (Oldeub.  1852) ;  G.’s  Frauen- 
gestalten  (5th  ed.  Berl.  1875):  Kl.  Schriften,  vol.  3  (Berl.  1875);  Varnhagtn, 
G.  in  den  Zeugnissen  der  Mitlebenden  (Perl.  1823);  H.  Viehoff,  G.’s  Leben, 
Geistesentwicklung  und  Werke,  4  vols.  (4th  ed.  Stuttg.  1 e  7 7)  ;  O.  Vilmar,  Zum 

Verstandnisse  G’s.,  4th  ed.  (Marburg,  1879);  Vogel,  G.  in  amtlichen  Ver- 

hallnissen  (Jena,  1834);  W.  Wachsmuth,  Weimars  Musenhof  in  den  Jahren 
1772  bis  1807  (Berl.  1844);  Winter,  G.’s  deutsche  Gesinnung  (Leipz.  1880). — 
Schafer  and  Herman  Grimm’s  books  are  very  useful. 

Letters  and  Conversations ,  connection  with  persons  and  places.  General 
collections  of  Letters. — Doring,  G.’s  Briefe  1768  bis  1832  (Leipz.  1837); 

Riemer,  Briefe  von  und  an  G.  (Leipz.  1836);  G.’s  Briefe,  4  vols.  (Berl.,  no 

date)  ;  Strehlke,  G’s.  Briefe  (Berl.  1881).  See  Gervinus,  Uber  den  Goethe- 
schen  Britfwechsel  (Leipz.  1836). — Bettina  von  Arnim,  nee  Brentano,  G.’s 
Briefwechsel  mit  einem  Kinde,  3  vols.  (3rd  ed.  Berl.  1881);  G.  in  Berlin 
(Berl.  1849);  O.  Brahm,  G.  und  Berlin  (Berl.  1880);  Sulpiz,  Boisscree  (Stuttg. 
1862);  Lucius,  Fiederick  Brion  von  Sessenheim  (Strass.  1877);  see  too,  E. 
Schmidt,  Im  neuen  Reich,  1877,  ii.  441  ;  also  Nake,  Wallfahrt  nach  Sesenheim 
(Berl.  1840);  Kruse,  Deutsche  Rundschau,  17,  218;  Kraus,  ibid.  20,  158;  A. 
Baier,  Das  Heidenroslein  (Heidelberg,  1877)  ;  Briefe  von  Karl  August  und  G. 
an  Dobereiner ,  pub.  by  O.  Schade  (Weimar,  1856) ;  Dornburg ,  R.  A.  C.  Schell, 
G.  in  Dornburg  (Jena  and  Leipzig,  1864);  L.  Geiger  in  the  Goethe-Jahrbuch, 
ii.  316;  Dresden,  W.v.  Biedermann,  G.  und  Dresden  (Berl.  1875) ;  Eckerniann , 


Chapter  XII. 


393 


Gesprache  mit  Goethe,  3  vols.  (3rd.  ed.  Leipz.  1868) :  G.’s  letters  to  Eichstddt , 
pub.  by  W.  v.  Biedermann  (Berl.  1S75)  ;  G.  und  das  sachsische  Erzgebiirge ,  by 
W.  v.  Biedermann  (Siutt.  1877) ;  Letters  from  G.  to  Johanna  Fahlmer ,  pub.  by 
Urlichs  (Leipz.  1875,  see  Sch.  Im  n.  Reich,  1875,  No.  48);  Joh.  Falk,  G.  aus 
niiherem  personlichen  Umgange  dargestellt  (3rd  ed.  Leipz.  1856) ;  F.  J.  From- 
mann,  Das  Frommansche  Haus  und  seine  Freunde  (2nd  ed.  Jc.na,  18721; 
Letters  from  G.  to  Gottling,  pub.  by  K.  Fischer  (Munich,  1S80);  Letters 
from  G.  to  Rath  Griiner  (Leipz.  1833)4  Aus  Herders  Nachlass,  i.  1-177; 
G.’s  letters  to  the  brothers  Humboldt,  pub.  by  Bratranek  (Leipz.  1876)  ;  Letters 
from  G.  to  F.  H.  Jacobi ,  pub.  by  Max  Jacobi  (Leipz.  1846);  Briefwechsel 
des  Grossherzogs  Karl  August  mit  G.  2  vols.  (Weimar,  1863:  see  Diintzer, 
G.  und  K.  August,  2  vols  Leipz.  1861,  65)  ;  Hlawaczek,  G.  in  Karlshad  (Karls¬ 
bad,  1877);  G.  and  the  composer,  P.  C.  Kayser,  pub.  by  Burkhardt  (Leipz. 
1879);  Kestncr,  G.  und  Weither,  pub.  by  A.  Keener  (2nd  ed.  Stutt.  1853); 
Lappenberg,  Reliquien  des  Frl  v.  Klettcnberg  (Hamburg,  1849:  see  F.  De- 
litzsch,  Philemon,  3rd  ed.  Gotha,  1878);  Short  letters  from  G.  to  Klopslock 
in  177 6  (Leipz.  1833;  see  Lyon,  G.’s  Verhaltnis  zu  Klopstock.  Dobeln, 
Diss.)  ;  Letters  from  G.  to  Knebel,  pub.  by  G.  E.  Guhrauer  2  vols.  (Leipz. 
1851  :  see  Knebel’s  Litt.  Nachlass,  pub.  by  Varnhagen  and  Mundt,  3  vols. 
Leipzig,  1840);  Knebel’s  letters  to  his  Sister,  pub.  by  Diintzer,  Jena,  1858; 
Zur  deutschen  Litteratur  und  Geschichte,  Briefe  aus  Knebels  Nachlass,  pub. 
by  Diintzer,  2  vols.  (Nuremberg.  1858)  ;  Letters  of  G.  to  S.  von  La  Roche,  and 
Bettina  Brentano,  pub.  by  G.  von  Loper  (Berl.  1879:  see  Schnorrs  Archiv. 
10,  83);  Letters  from  G.  to  Lavater,  ed.  by  H.  Hirzel  (Leipz.  1833);  Leipzig , 
O.  Jahn,  G.’s  Briefe  an  Leipziger  Freunde  (2  ed.  Leipz.  1867)  ;  W.  v.  Bieder¬ 
mann,  G.  und  Leipzig,  2  Parts  (Leipz  1865)  ;  Tomaschek,  G.  als  Student  in 
Leipzig  (Zs.  f.  osterr.  Gymn.  1873,  p.  1181);  Lili,  E.  Jiigel,  Das  Puppenhaus 
(Frankf.  1857),  p.323;  Graf  Durckhtim,  Lillis  Bild  (Nordlingen,  1879):  H. 
Luden,  Riickblicke  in  mein  Leben  (J.ena,  1847),  PP*  1-I32  5  G.  and  F.  Mendels¬ 
sohn- Bartholdy,  by  K.  Mendelssohn-B.  (Leipz.  1871)  ;  Merck  (Letters  to  J.  H. 
Merck,  Darmstadt,  1835  anc^  1838  5  Briefe  aus  dem  Freundeskieise  von  Goethe, 
Herder.  Hopfner  und  Merck,  Leipz.  1847,  pub.  hy  K. Wagner);  Freundschaft- 
liche  Briefe  von  G.  und  seiner  Frau  an  Nicolaus  Meyer  (Leipz.  1856)  ;  G ’s 
Unterhaltungen  mit  F.  von  A  fuller  by  Burkhardt  (Stuttg.  1 870);  Nicolovius,  Den  k- 
schrift  auf  G.  PL  L.  Nicolovius,  by  Alfred  Nicolovius  (Bonn.  1841);  Goethe, 
/.  G.  von  Quandt ,  und  der  Sachsische  Kunstverein,  by  H.  Uhde  (Stutt.  1878)  ; 
E.  W.  Neumann,  G.  in  Regensburg  (Schnorr’ s  Arch.  iv.  185) ;  Letters  from  G.  to 
Reinhard  (Stutt.  1850)  ;  Riemcr ,  Mittheilungen  iiber  G.  2  vols.  (Berlin,  1841)  ; 
A.  Stober,  Der  Actuar  Salzmann  (Miihlhausen,  183?;);  Aus  Schellings  Leben, 
3  vols.  (Leipz.  1869,  70) ;  Letters  from  Schiller  to  G.  (4th  ed.  Stutt.  1881  ;  see 
Diintzer,  Sch.  und  G.,  Stutt. 1859)  1  Schiller’s  and  Goethe’s  letters  to  A.W.  Schlegel 
(Leipz.  1846)  ;  H. Wenzel,  G.  in  Schlesicn  (Oppeln,  1867) ;  Schonborn  und  seine 
Zeitgenossen  (Hamburg,  1836;  see  Weir, hold,  Schonborn’s  Aufzeichnungen 
iiber  Erlebtes,  Zs.  der  Gesellsch.  fiir  die  Gesch.  der  Herzogth.  Schleswig- 
Holstein  und  Lauenburg,  1870,  vol.  i.  Redlich,  Zum  29  Januar  1878,  Plamb. 
1878);  G.  and  Ph.  Seidel  (Im  neuen  Reich,  1871);  Goethe-Briefe  aus  F. 
Schlosscrs  Nachlass,  pub.  by  J.  Frese  (Stutt.  1877);  Briefw.  zwischen  G.  und 


394 


Bibliography . 


Staatsrath  Schulz,  pub.  by  Diintzer  (Leipz.  1853);  Leben  der  Malerin  Louise 
Seidler,  by  H.  Uhde  (2nd  ed.  Berl.  1875  ;  see  H.  Grimm,  Funfzehn  Essays, 
p.  288);  G.’s  letters  to  Soret ,  pub.  by  H.  Uhde  (Stutt.  1877);  G.’s  letters  to 
Frail  von  Stein ,  pub.  by  A.  Scholl,  3  vols.  (Weimar,  1848,  51,  2nd  ed.  by 
W.  Fielitz,  vol.  i,  Frankf.  1883:  see  Diintzer,  Charlotte  von  Stein,  2  vols. 
Stutt.  1874;  Diintzer,  C.  v.  Stein,  und  Corona  Schroter,  Stutt.  1876);  Letters 
from  G.  and  his  Mother  to  Freiherr  v.  Stein ,  ed.  by  Ebers  and  Kahlert  (Leipz. 
1846);  Letters  from  G.  to  K.  Graf  v.  Sternberg ,  pub.  by  Bratranek  (Vienna, 

1 856)  ;  Goethe’s  letters  to  Grafin  A.  zu  Stolberg  (2nd  ed.  by  W.  Arndt.  Leipz. 
1881);  Strassbw'g,  Leyser,  G.  zu  Stiassbusg  (Neustadt  a  d.  H.  1871);  for 
G.’s  journey  to  Lorraine,  see  Godeke,  in  the  ‘  Gegenwart,’  13,  5  ;  v.  Loper  in 
Schnorr’s  Archiv.  7.  529,  8,  223  ;  G.’s  letters  to  C.  G.  v.  Voigt,  ed.  by  O.  Jahn 
(Leipz.  1868);  W.  Herbst,  G.  in  IVetzlar  (Gotha,  1881);  Seuffert,  Der  junge 
G.  und  IVieland,  Zs.  26,  252;  Letters  from  G.  to  M.  v.  Willemer  (Suleika), 
pub.  by  Th.  Creizenach  (2nd  ed.  Stuttg„  1878;  see  H.  Grimm,  Fiinfzehn 
Essays,  p.  258);  G.’s  letters  to  F.  A.  Wolf,  pub.  by  M.  Bernays  (Berl.  1868); 
letters  from  G.  to  Zelter,  pub.  by  Riemer,  6  vols.  (Berlin,  1833-34. 

Religion  and  Science.  L.  v.  Lancizolle,  Tiber  G.’s  Verhaltnis  zu  Religion 
und  Cbristenthum  (Berlin,  1855);  van  Oosterzee,  G.’s  Stellung  zum  Christen- 
thum  (Bielefeld,  1858) ;  J.  Bayer,  G.’s  Verhaltnis  zu  religiosen  Fragen,  (Prague, 
1869);  R.  Jobst,  G.’s  religiose  Entwickelung  bis  1775  (Stettin,  1877,  Progr.)  ; 

E.  Filtsch,  G.’s  Stellung  zur  Religion  (Langensalza,  1879,  L)iss.)  ;  Steck,  G.’s 
religioser  Entwicklungsgang  (Protestanlische  Kirchenzeitung,  1880,  Nos.  22, 
23);  J-  Schmidt,  G.’s  Stellung  zum  Christenthum  (G.  Jahrbuch,  1881,  p.  49)  ; 
O.  Pfleiderer,  G.’s  religiose  Weltanschauung  (Protest.  Kirchenz.  1883,  No.  13); 

F.  K.  J.  Schiitz,  G.’s  Philosophic,  7  Vols.  (Hamburg,  1825,  26);  E.  Caro, 
La  Philosophic  de  Goethe  (Paris,  1866);  A.  Harpf,  G.'s  Erkenntnisprincip 
(Philosoph.  Monatshefte,  1883) ;  Danzel,  Uber  G.’s  Spinozismus,  (Hamb. 
1850);  Jellinek,  Die  Beziehungen  G.'s  zu  Spinoza  (Vienna,  1878);  Heyder, 
Uber  das  Verhaltnis  G.’s  zu  Spinoza  (Zs.  f.  die  Lutherische  Theologie  und 
Kirche,  2 7,  261)  ;  Suphan,  G.  und  Spinoza  in  der  Festschrift  zur  zweiten  Sacular- 
feier  des  Friedrichs- Werderschen  Gymn.  zu  Berlin  (Berl.  1881). — Oscar  Schmidt, 
G’s.  Verhaltnis  zu  den  organischen  Naturwissenschaften  (Berl.  1853);  Virchow, 

G.  als  Naturforscher  (Berl.  1 86 1 )  ;  Helmholtz,  Uber  G.’s  naturwissenschaft- 
liche  Arbeiten  (Populate  wissenschaftliche  Vortrage,  i.  31);  Hackel,  Natiir- 
liche  Schopfungsgeschichte ;  O.  Schmidt,  War  G.  ein  Darwinianer?  (1871); 
F.  Cohn,  G.  als  Botaniker  (Deutsche  Rundschan,  28,  26)  ;  S.  Kalischer,  Ein- 
leitungen  zu  Bd.  33-36  der  Hempelschen  Ausgabe ;  Du  Bois-Reymond,  G. 
und  kein  Ende  (Leipz.  1883);  S.  Kalischer,  G.  als  Naturforscher  (Berl. 
18S3).  G.’s  letters  on  Natural  Science  were  pub.  by  Bratranek,  in  2  vols. 
(Leipz.  1874). — Wegele,  G.  als  Historiker  (Wiirzb.  1876). 

Poems.  G.’s  lyric  poems,  explained  by  Diintzer,  2nd  ed.  3  vols.  (Leipz. 
1875-77);  G.’s  poems  explained  by  H.  Viehoff,  2nd  ed.  2  vols.  (Stutt. 
1869-70);  G.’s  Werke,  Vol.  i:  Poems,  Part  i,  with  notes  by  G.  v.  Loper 
(Berl.  1882).  See  Kannegiesser,  Vortrage  liber  eine  Auswahl  von  G.’s 
lyrischen  Gedichten  (Breslau,  1835);  Bergk,  Acht  Lieder  von  G.  (Wetzlar, 

1857) ;  W.  v.  Biedermann,  Zu  G.’s  Gedichten  (Leipz.  1870);  Masing,  Uber 


395 


Chapter  XII. 

ein  Goethesches  Lied.  (Leipz.  1872);  Miklosich  (Uber  G.’s  Klaggesang  von 
der  edlen  Frauen  des  Asan  Aga.  (Vienna,  1883,  Sitzungsberichte) ;  E. 
Lichtenberger,  Etude  sur  les  poesies  iyriques  de  Goethe,  2nd  ed.  (Paris,  1882). 

Egmont.  See  Diintzer,  Gotz  und  Egmont,  Erl. ;  Bratranek,  G.’s  Egmont 
und  Schiller’s  Wallenstein  (Stuttg.  1862);  Schiller’s  Critique,  6.  80.  G. ; 
Schiller’s  Edition,  15  b,  1  G. 

Iphigenie.  The  fourfold  text  published  by  J.  Bachtold,  (Freib.  1883)  ; 
see  Schiller  6.  239  G. ;  Diintzer,  Die  drei  altesten  Bearbeitungen  von  G.’s 
Iphigenie  (Stutt.  1854),  Erl. ;  Danzel,  Gesammelte  Aufsatze,  p.  146  ;  O.  Jahn, 
Aus  der  Alterthumswissenschalt  (Bonn,  1868),  p.  353  ;  W.  v.  Biedermann  was 
the  first  to  observe  the  connection  with  Sophocles’  Philoctetes  ;  see  Imelmann, 
Anmerkungen  zu  deutschen  Dichtern  (out  of  the  Symbolae  Joachimicae),  p.  27. 
On  the  origin  of  the  Iphigenie,  Grimm,  p.  269. 

Tasso.  Fully  explained  by  Diintzer  (Leip.  1854),  Erl. ;  Lewitz,  Uber  G’s. 
Torquato  Tasso  (Konigsb.  1839);  Hasper,  Uber  G.’s  T.  T.  (Miihlhausen  i. 
Th.  1S62,  Progr.) ;  A.  F.  C.  Vilmar,  Uber  G.’s  Tasso  (Frankf.  1869);  J. 
Schmidt,  Preuss.  Jahrb.  46,  174.  See  Th.  Jacobi,  Tasso  und  Leonore  (Prutz, 
Litterarhistor.  Taschenb.  1848,  p.  1).  For  Lenz  see  Gruppe’s  Leben  und 
Werke  deutscher  Dichter,  iv.  256.  For  Leonore  Sanvitale,  Schnorrs  Archiv 
iv.  215. 

Italian  Journey.  Grimm,  Fiinfzehn  Essays,  p.  137;  L.  Hirzel,  G.’s 
Italienische  Reise  (Basle,  1871);  Th.  Cart,  G.  en  Italie  (Paris,  1881). — Art 
Studies.  Danzel,  G.  und  die  Weimarischen  Kunstfreunde  in  ihrem  Verhaltnis 
zu  Winckelmann  (Gesammelte  Aufsatze  p.  1 1 8)  ;  Grimm,  G.’s  Verhaltnis  zur 
bildenden  Kunst  (Zehn  Essays,  p.  192).  See  also  Stichling,  G.  und  die  freie 
Zeichenschule  zu  Weimar  (Weimarische  Beitrage,  Weimar,  1865,  p.  33). — 
Iphigenie  in  Delphi ,  Sch.  in  Westermanns  Monatshefte,  46,  73. — Nausikaa, 
ibid.  46,  726. — Roman  Elegies.  H.  J.  Heller,  Neue  Jahrbiicher  fiir  Philol.  und 
Padagogik,  1863,  ii.  Part  8-1 1 ;  Diintzer,  ibid.  1864,  Part  4. 


2.  Schiller  and  Goethe ,  ii.  pp.  1 70-199. 

Xenien.  E.  Boas,  S.  and  G.  im  Xenienkampf,  2  Parts  (Stuttg.  1851);  die 
S.  and  G.  Xenien,  erlautert  von  E.  J.  Saupe  (Leipz.  1852);  see  S.  and  G.’s 
Xenien  Manuscript,  published  by  W.  v.  Maltzahn  (Beil.  1856). 

The  Theatre.  Theatre  Letters  of  G.,  and  friendly  letters  of  Jean  Paul,  by 
Dietmar  (Berlin,  1835);  Scholl,  Goethe,  p.  280,  ‘Goethes  Verhaltnis  zura 
Theater’;  E.  Genast,  Aus  dem  Tagebuche  eines  alten  Schauspielers,  Vol.  i. 
(Leipz.  1862);  H.  Schmidt,  Erinnerungen  eines  Weimarischen  Veteranen 
(Leipz.  1856);  E.  Pasque,  G.’s  Theaterleitung  in  Weimar,  2  vols.  (Leipz. 
1863);  W.  G.  Gotthardi,  Weimarische  Theaterbilder  aus  G.’s  Zeit.  2  vols. 
(1865);  E.  W.  Weber,  Zur  Geschichte  des  Weimarischen  Theaters  (Weimar, 
1865). — Ekhof \  Uhde  in  Neuer  Plutarch,  iv.  121. — Schroder ,  F.  L.  W.  Meyer, 
F.  L.  Schroder,  2  Parts  (Hamb.  1819);  see  letters  of  Iffland  and  Schroder  to 
the  actor  Werdy,  pub.  by  O.  Devrient  (Frankf.  1881). — Iffland:  Iffland, 
Meine  theatralische  Laufbahn  (Leipz.  1798);  Z.  Funck,  Aus  dem  Leben 


396 


Bibliography. 


zweier  Schauspieler,  Iffllands  und  Devrients  (Leipz.  1838). — Kotzebue :  Leben 
A.  v.  Kotzebues  (Leipz.  1820);  A.  v.  Kotzebue,  Urtheile  der  Zeitgenossen  und 
der  Gegemvart,  by  W.  v.  Kotzebue  (Dresden,  1S81)  ;  other  works  in  Godeke, 
p.  1064. — P.  A.  Wolff:  Monogr.  Martersteig  (Leipz.  1879). 

The  Natural  Daughter.  Duntzer,  Erl.  ;  for  the  authority :  Memoires  his- 
toriques  de  Stephanie-Louise  de  Bourbon-Conti,  2  vols.  (Paris,  Floreal,  an.  vi.) 

Wilhelm  JMeister.  See  Schiller  and  Goethe’s  letters ;  Korner,  Gesamm. 
Sehr.  p.  107;  Fried.  Schlegel,  2.  165.  M.  Jenisch,  Uber  die  hervorstechend- 
sten  Eigenthiimlichkeiten  von  Meisters  Lehrjahren  (Berk  ;  797s  ;  Duntzer,  Erl. 

Conversations  of  German  Emigrants.  Duntzer,  G.’s  Reise  der  Sohne  Mega- 
prazons  und  Unterh.  d.  Ausg.  (Leipz.  1S73)  in  the  Erl. 

Hermann  und  Dorothea.  W.  von  Humboldt's  asthetische  Versuche,  1st 
Part.  Uber  G.’s  H.  und  D.  (Brunswick,  1799);  A.  W.  Schlegel,  11.  183, 
Cholevius,  Asthet.  und  histor.  Einleitung  zu  G.’s  H.  und  D.  (2nd  ed.  Leipz. 
1 87 7)  ;  Diintzer,  Erl.  See  too,  RUmelin,  Reden  und  Aufsatze,  p.  382. 

Achillcis.  Strehlke,  Uber  G.’s  Elpenor  und  Achilleis  (Marienburg,  1870, 
Progr.). 

3.  Schiller ,  ii.  pp.  199-228. 

Editions.  An  historical  and  critical  ed.  under  Godeke’s  direction,  15 
Parts,  in  17  Vols.  (Stuttg.  1867-18.6);  R.  Boxberger’s  ed.  (2nd  ed.  Berk 
1882,  8  vols.);  Schiller’s  Calendar,  July  18,  1795-1805,  pub.  by  Emilie  v. 
Gleichen-Russwurm  (Stuttg.  1865'  ;  Notes  to  the  poems  by  Duntzer  and 
Viehoff,  and  to  the  Dramas  by  Duntzer  and  Eckardt,  in  the  Erl. — Letters. 
S.  s  Letters,  with  historical  notes,  2  vols.  (Berlin)  ;  letters  to  his  wife,  S.  and 
Lotte,  17SS-1S05,  3rd  ed.  corrected,  by  W.  Fielitz,  3  Books  (Stuttg.  1879); 
See  Charlotte  von  S.  und  ihre  Freunde  (pub.  by  L.  Urlichs),  3  vols.  (Stuttg. 
1S60);  Briefe  von  S.’s  Gattin  an  einen  vertrauten  Freund  (von  Knebel),  pub. 
by  Dlintzer  (Leipz.  1S56);  Hennes  Fischenich  und  C.  von  S.  (Frankf.  1875); 
VvT.  Toischer,  Lotte  S.  (Vienna,  1881).  Other  letters:  S.’s  Beziehungen  zu 
Eltern,  Geschwistem,  und  der  Familie  von  'YVolzogen  (Stuttg.  185^)  ;  S.’s 
Briefwechsel  mit  seiner  Schwester  Christophine  und  Srinem  Schwager  Rein- 
wald  (Leipz.  1S75);  S.’s  Geschaftsb.iefe,  ed.  by  K.  Godeke  (Leipz.  1S75); 
Briefw.  zwischen  S.  und  Cotta,  ed.  by  W.  Yollmer  (Stutt.  1876)  ;  Briefe  an  S., 
ed.  by  L.  Urlichs  (Stutt.  iS 7 7).  Many  letters  to  S.  are  in  the  Neue  freie 
Presse,  No.  4220.  The  most  important  are  S.’s  Briefwechsel  mit  Korner,  2nd 
ed.  pub.  by  K.  Godeke,  a^Paits  (Leipz.  1S74  ;  comp.  C.  G.  Korner’ s  Gesam- 
melte  Schriften,  pub.  by  A.  Stern  Leipz.  iSSh  ;  F.  Jonas,  C.  G.  Korner,  Berk 
1882);  Briefw.  zwischen  S.  und  W.  von  Humboldt,  2nd  ed.  (Stuttg.  1876); 
Briefw.  mit  Goethe  (see  XII  1)  ;  S.’s  Briefw.  mit  dem  Herzog  von  Schleswig- 
Holstein-Augustenburg,  pub.  by  F.  Max  Muller  Berlin.  1875,  see  Deutsche 
Rundschau,  Oct.  1881,  p.  156);  Briefe  von  S.  an  Herzog  F.  C.  von  Schleswig- 
Holstein-Augustenburg,  pub.  by  A.  L.  J.  Michelsen  (Berlin,  1876).  See  Breul, 
Zs.  xxviii.  358. 

Biographies ,  Characteristics ,  etc.  Belling,  Metrik  S.'s  (Breslau,  1SS3); 
E.  Boas,  S.’s  Jugendjahre,  2  vols.  (Hanover,  1856);  Boxberger,  S.  und 
Haller  (Erfurt,  1S69,  Progr.);  also  Schnorrs  Archiv  2.  198;  4.  252,  494; 


Chapter  XII. 


3  97 


Braun,  S.  im  Urtheile  seiner  Zeitgenossen,  2  vols.  (Leipz.  1882) ;  Brosin, 
S.’s  Verhaltnis  zu  deni  Publicum  seiner  Zeit  (Leipz.  1875)  ;  S.’s  Vater 
(Leipz.  1879);  E.  L.  Bulwer,  S.’s  Life  and  Works;  Tb  Carlyle,  The  Life 
of  S.  (.825,  Supplement,  1872,  London,  1873);  W.  Deecke,  Uber  S.’s 
Auffassung  des  Kiinstlerberufs  (Liibeck,  1862);  Dlintzer,  S.’s  Leben  (Leipz. 
1881);  Egger,  S.  in  Marbach  (Vienna,  1868);  Fielitz,  Studien  zu  S.  s 
Dramen  (Leipz.  1876);  Kuno  Fischer,  S.  Festival  Speech  (Leipz.  1860);  S. 
Three  Lectures  (Leipz.  1868);  Jacob  Grimm,  Rede  auf  S.  (Berl.  1859'!,' 
G.  Hauff,  S.  Studien  (Stuttg.  1880)  ;  L.  Hirzel,  Uber  S.’s  Beziehungen  zum 
Alterthume  (Aarau,  1872);  K.  Hofmeister,  S.’s  Leben,  Geistesentvvickelung 
und  Werke  im  Zusammenhange,  5  Parts  (Stuttg.  1838-42)  ;  D.  Jacoby,  S. 
und  Garve,  Schnorr’s  Archiv  7.  95  ;  A.  v.  Keller,  Beitrage  zur  Schillerlitteratur 
(Tiib.  1839,  i860);  E.  Palleske,  S.’s  Leben  und  Werke,  2  vols.  (Berlin,  1858, 
1 859) ;  J.  Reuper,  S.’s  Dramen  im  Lichte  d_r  zeitgenossichen  Kritik  (Bielitz, 
1874,  Progr.)  ;  Riimelin,  Rede  iiber  S.’>  politische  Ansichten  (Heilbronn,  1850)  ; 
Schlossberger,  Archivalische  Naclilese  zur  Schillerlitteratur  (Stuttg.  1877); 
G.  Schwab,  S.’s  Leben  (Stuttg.  1840)  ;  Streicher,  S.’s  Flucht  von  Stuttgart 
und  Aufenthalt  in  Mannheim  (Stutt.  1836)  ;  K.  Tomaschek,  S.  in  seinem 
Verhaltnisse  zur  Wissenschaft  (Vienna,  1862);  K.  Twesten,  S.  in  seinem 
Verhaltnis  zur  Wissenschaft  dargestellt  (Berl.  1863);  H.  Viehoff,  S.’s  Leben, 
Geistesentwickelung  und  Werke,  3  Parts  (Stuttg.  1875);  Fr.  Vischer,  Fest 
Rede  (Zurich,  1859)  >  K.  Weinhold,  Festrede  auf  S.  (Gratz,  1859) ;  C.  v.  Wol- 
zogen,  S.’s  Leben  (see  Schnorr’s  Archiv  1.  452,  4.  4S2),  2  Parts  (Stuttg.  1830). 
The  best  work  is  Hoffmeister  s. 

The  Dramas.  The  Robbers.  A  sheet  of  the  first  suppressed  Edition  is 
pub.  by  A.  Cohn  in  Schnorrs  Archiv  9.  277;  Boxberger,  ibid.  3.  283,  4.  496  ; 
Minor, ibid.  10.  97;  Baxberger,  Die  Sprache  der  Bibel  in  S.’s  Raubern  (Erfurt, 
1867,  Progr.);  K.  Richter,  S.  und  seine  Rauber  in  der  franzosischen  Revolu¬ 
tion  (Griinberg,  1865). — Ficsco :  J.  Franck,  Zs.  20.  366. — Don  Carlos:  Re¬ 
print  of  1st  ed.  by  W.  Vollmer  (Stuttg.  1880);  see  Levy,  Zs.  21.  277. — 
Wallenstein :  Simrn,  Uber  S.’s  W.  in  Hinsicht  auf  griechbche  Tragodie 
(Beil.  1800);  K.  Tomaschek,  S.’s  W.  (Vienna,  1858);  Fie’itz,  Studien,  p.  7; 
Schnorr’s  Archiv  ii.  159,  402,  viii.  544,  ix.  560. — Maria  Stuart :  Fielitz,  p.  44. 
RIaid  of  Orleans:  Fielitz,  p.  71  ;  Peppmiiller  in  Schnorr’s  Archiv  2.  179; 
Rompler,  Bermerkungen  zur  Schiller’s  J.  v.  O.  (Plauen,  1S72,  Progr.)  ;  E.  F. 
Rummer,  Die  J.  v.  O.  in  der  Dichtung  (Vienna,  1874). — Bride  of  Messina: 
Gerlinger,  Die  griechischen  Elemente  in  S.’s  B.  v.  M.  (Augsb.  1858);  Gevers, 
Uber  S.’s  B.  v.  M.  und  den  Konig  GEdipus  des  Sophokles  (Verden,  1873, 
Progr.);  Liebrecht,  Zur  Volkskunde  (Heilbronn,  1879),  p.  471;  Imelmai.n, 
Anm.  zu  deutschen  Dichtern,  p.  16. —  Wilhelm  Tell :  notes  by  W.  E.  Weber 
(18  9,  2nd  ed.  Bremen,  1832);  see  Joachim  Meyer,  S.’s  W.  T.  auf  seine 
Quellen  zuriickgefiihrt  (Nuremberg,  1810);  Schnorr’s  Archiv  1.461,  2.539, 
544;  Imelmann,  Anmerkungen  p.  19.  For  the  legend,  W.  Fischer,  Die  Sage 
von  der  Befreiung  der  Waldstadte  nach  ihrer  allmaligen  Ausbildung  (Leipzig, 
1867);  E.  L.  Rochholz,  Tell  und  Gessler  in  Sage  und  Geschichte  (Heilbronn, 
!877). 


398 


Bibliography. 


XIII.  Romanticism,  ii.  pp.  229-335. 

R.  Haym’s  work,  Die  romantische  Schule  (Berl.,  1870)  only  gives  the  older 
Romanticism,  and  does  not  extend  much  beyond  the  beginning  of  the 
19th  century.  The  same  applies  to  Dilthey’s  Leben  Schleiermachers  (Berk, 
1870).  I  have  extended  the  term  Romanticism  so  as  to  include  Heinrich 
Heine,  and  have  named  the  whole  period  between  Schiller’s  death  and  the  death 
of  Goethe  after  the  prevailing  tone  of  ideas.  For  the  connection  between  the 
‘  Period  of  Genius,’  and  Romanticism,  see  Deutsche  Litterafurrevolution,  Sch.’s 
Vortrage  und  Aufsatze,  p.  337.  The  great  example  of  this  connection  is 
Goethe’s  Faust.  For  divisions  2  to  4,  see  J.  v.  Eichendorff,  Gesch.  der  poet. 
Litt.  Deutschlands,  vol.  2  (Paderb.  1866).  H.  Hettner,  Die  romantische  Schule 
(Brunswick,  1850). 

1.  Science ,  ii.  pp.  231-259. 

For  the  persons  here  mentioned,  see  Godeke  3,  81-124. 

The  improvement  of  the  language.  With  the  exception  of  Andersen’s  Uber 
die  Sprache  Jacob  Grimm’s  (Leipz.,  1869),  little  has  been  written  on  this  sub¬ 
ject,  and  indeed,  the  history  of  German  prose  writing  is  very  imperfect.  For 
Fr.  L.  Jahn,  see  the  Monograph  by  Euler  (Stuttg.,  1881),  p.  441. 

Women.  Schiller’s  sister-in-law,  Caroline  v.  Wolzogen,  the  authoress  of  the 
novel  Agnes  von  Lilien,  see  Litterarischer  Nachlass  der  Frau  C.  v.  W.,  2  vols., 
2d  ed.  (Leipz.,  1867).  For  Bettina,  see  G.  v.  Loper,  A.  D.  B.  ii.  578,  and 
Hermann  Grimm  (above,  XII.  1).  Rahel  v.  Varnhagen.  ‘  Rahel,  ein  Buch 
des  Andenkens  fur  ihre  Freunde  ’  (Berk,  1833,  in  3  vols  ;  Berk,  1834).  Letters 
to  David  Veit,  2  vols.  (Leipz.,  1861)  ;  to  Varnhagen,  6  vols.  (Leipz.,  1874, 
75) ;  Aus  Rahels  Herzensleben  (Leipz.,  1877) ;  see  Godeke  iii.,  79.  Henriette 
Herz,  J.  Fiirst,  H.  H.  ihr  Leben  und  ihr  Erinnerungen,  2d  ed.  (Berk,  1858); 
Briefe  desjungen  Borne  an  H.  H.  (Leipz.,  1861).  Caroline  Schelling,  nee 
Michaelis,  G.  Waitz,  Caroline,  2  vols.  (Leipz.,  1871).  Caroline  und  ihre  Freunde 
(Leipz.,  1882).  See  R.  Haym,  Preuss.  Jahrb.  vol.  28,  356;  Sch.  Vortrage  und 
Aufsatze,  p.  356. 

Philosophy.  Among  the  philosophers  the  history  of  literature  is  most 
occupied  with  Schopenhauer  for  style,  and  Schelling  for  poetry.  For  Schelling, 
besides  the  well-known  terza  rima,  ‘  Die  letzten  Worte  des  Pfarrers  zu  Drottning 
auf  Seeland  ’  (Aus  Schellings  Leben  i.  293),  and  some  other  poems  in  Schlegel 
and  Tieck’s  Musenalmanach  for  1802,  see  also  the  ‘  Epikurisch  Glaubensbe- 
kenntnis  Heinz  Widerporstens’  (aus  Schelling’s  Leben  i.  182,  where,  however,  it 
is  not  noted  that  II.  W.  is  a  character  from  Hans  Sachs,  Keller  v,  321)  ;  and 
‘  Nachtwachen  von  Bonavenlura  ’  (Reprint,  Lindau  and  Leipz.,  1877  ;  see  Zs. 
xxiii.  203). 

Mathematics  and  Natural  Sciences.  I  have  gathered  my  information  chiefly 
from  Whewell’s  Inductive  Sciences,  from  Haser’s  Geschichte  der  Medicin, 
from  Articles  in  the  A.  D.  B.,  and  especially  from  the  Geschichte  der  Wissen- 
schaften  in  Deutschland,  brought  out  by  the  Munich  Historical  Commission. 

Cosmology  and  A.  v.  Humboldt.  O.  Peschel,  Geschichte  der  Erdkunde 
(Munich,  1865).  G.  Forster’s  Sammtliche  Schriften,  9  vols.  (Leipz.,  1843); 


Chapter  XIII. 


399 


Briefwechsel  mit  Sommerring,  pub.  by  Hettner  (Bruns,  1877)  5  on  A.  v.  Hum¬ 
boldt,  the  Monograph  edited  by  Bruhns,  3  vols.  (Leipz.,  1S72);  H.  W.  Dove, 
Gedachtnisrede  auf  A.  v.  H.  (Berl.,  1869) ;  see  A.  v.  H.  Letters  to  Varnhagen 
(Leipz.,  i860);  to  Bunsen,  (Leipz.,  1869);  to  Gauss  (Leipz,  1877);  to  his 
brother  Wilhelm  (Stuttg.,  1880);  on  A.  v.  H.  and  the  two  Forsters,  A.  Dove, 
A.  D.  B  ,  vii.  166,  1 72  ;  xiii.,  338.  On  Karl  Ritter ,  the  Monograph  by  Kramer, 
2  parts  (Halle,  1875). 

Wilhelm  von  Humboldt.  W.  v.  H.  Gesammelte  Werke,  7  vols.  (Berl.,  1841- 
52);  Uber  die  Verschiedenheit  des  menschlichen  Sprachbaues  (reprint  by 
Pott,  2  vols.,  Berl.,  1876).  Die  sprachphilosophischen  Werke  W.  v.  H,  ed. 
H.  Steinihal  (Berl.,  1883,  also  Zs.  f.  Volkerpsychologie,  xiii.  201) ;  Briefe  an  F, 
G.  Welcker,  ed.  R.  Haym  (Berl ,  1859)  ;  Ansichten  liber  Asthetik  und  Litteratur 
von  W.  v.  H.,  ed.  F.  Jonas  (Berl ,  1880)  ;  Briefe  an  eine  Freundin  (Leipz.,  1847)  ; 
Briefe  an  Henriette  Herz  (Varnhagen,  Br  von  Chamisso,  Gneisenau,  &c ,  i 
1-132).  See  G.  Schlesier,  Erinnerungen  an  W.  v.  H.,  2  vols.  (Stuttg.,  1843,  45). 
R.  Haym,  W.  v.  H.  Lebensbild  und  Charakteristik  (Berl.,  1856)  ;  H.  Steinthal, 
Gedachtnisrede  auf  W.  v.  H.  (Berl.,  1867)  ;  A.  Dove,  A.  D.  B.  xiii.  338. 

Moral  Science.  For  Schleiermacher,  besides  Dilthey’s  Life,  see  Sigwart,  Kleine 
Schriften,  i,  221. — For  History ,  see  Baur,  Die  Epochen  der  kirchlichen  Ge- 
schichtschreibung  (Tub.,  1852)  ;  Waitz,  Gottinger  Historiker  von  Kohler  bis 
Dahlmann  (Gottinger  Professoren,  p.  231).  Gervinus,  F.  C.  Schlosser  (Leipz., 
1861) ;  especially  p.  53,  Geschichte  des  neunzehnten  Jh.  viii.  65. 

Ludwig  Tieck.  Phantasus,  3  vols.  (Berl.,  1812-17);  Works,  20  vols 
(Berl.,  1828-46);  Poems,  3  vols.  (Dresden,  1821-23  ;  2d  ed.  1834;  new  ed. 
Berl.,  1841).  Kritische  Schriften  (Leipz.,  1848-52) ;  Gesammelte  Novellen, 
12  vols.  (Berl.  1852-54)  ;  Nacbgelassene  Schriften,  2  vols.  (Leipz.,  1855)  ;  see 
R.  Kopke,  L.  T.,  2  parts  (Leipz.,  1855)  ;  von  Friesen,  L.  T.,  2  vols.  (Vienna, 
1871).  A.  Stern,  Zur  Litteratur  der  Gegenwart  (Leipz.,  1880),  p.  1-44  ;  Briefe 
an  Tieck,  ed.  K.  v.  Holtei,  4  vols.  (Breslau,  1864).  A.  W.  Schlegel.  Ed. 
E.  Booking,  Sammt.  Werke,  12  vols.  (Leipz.,  1846-47);  CEuvres  ecrites  en 
frantpais,  3  vols.  (Leipz.,  1846);  Opuscula  latina  (Leipz.,  1848);  Vorlesungen 
liber  schone  Litteratur  und  Kunsf,  ed.  by  J.  Minor,  in  Seuffert,  No.  17,  19 
(Heilbr.  1854).  See  M.  Bernays,  Zur  Entstchungsgeschichte  des  Schlegel- 
schen  Shakespeare  (Leipz.,  1872);  Schnorr’s  Archiv,  x.  236:  Strauss,  Kleine 
Schriften,  p.  122. — Fr.  Schlegel.  Sammtl.  Werke,  10  vols.  (Vienna,  1822-25, 
larger  ed.,  15  vols.,  1846);  his  youthful  prose  works  from  1794-1802,  pub.  by 
J.  Minor,  2  vols.  (Vienna,  1882).  See  Dorothea  von  Schlegel,  nee  Mendelssohn, 
und  deren  Sbhne,  Briefwechsel,  ed.  by  Raich,  2  vols.  (Mainz,  1881). 

Later  Romantic  School.  See  K.  v.  Raumer,  Geschichte  der  Germanischen 
Philologie  (Munich,  1870)  ;  and  Sch.,  Jacob  Grimm  (Berl.  1865,  2d  ed.  1885)  ; 
also  Eichendorfl,  Litt.  Nachlass  (Paderb.  1866),  p.  290. — Arnim.  Sammtl.  Wei  Ice 
(Berl.,  1839;  new  ed.,  22  vols.,  1853-56).  Reprint  of  Hollins’  Liebeleben  by  J. 
Minor  (Freib  ,  1883).  The  Wunderhorn  has  been  reprinted  several  times. — 
Brentano.  Cesammelte  Schriften,  9  vols.  (Frankf.,  1851-55).  See  Diel,  S.  J. 
Clemens  Brentano,  ein  Lebensbild,  2  vols.  (Freib.,  1877,  78);  J.  B.  Heinrich. 
Cl.  B.  (Cologne,  1878)  ;  Grisebach,  Die  Deutsche  Litteratur  (Vienna,  1876),  p. 
218;  Varnhagen,  Biogr.  Portr.  (Leipz.,  1871),  p.  59. — Gorres.  Monograph 


400 


Bibliography . 


by  Sepp ;  Gesammelte  Briefe,  3  vols.  (Munich,  1858-1874). — The  Brothers 
Grimm.  Sch.  A.  D.  B.,  ix.  678,  690.  Correspondence  between  Jacob  and 
Wilhelm  Grimm  in  youth,  ed.  by  H.  Grimm  and  G.  Hinrichs  (Weimar,  1881). 
Briefw.  des  Freiherrn  K.  H.  G.  v.  Meusebach  mit  J.  und  W.  Grimm,  ed.  by 
C.  Wendeler  (Heilbronn,  1880)  ;  see  H.  Grimm's,  Fiinfzehn  Essays,  3rd  series 
(Berl.,  1882),  p.  287. —  Uhlond ,  see  XIII.  2. 

Translations.  See  Godeke  iii.  215-225,  1281-1403.  He  mentions  532 
Translators.  See  too  the  letters  of  H.  Voss  to  Fr.  Diez,  pub.  by  A.  Tobler 
in  the  Breuss.  Jahrb.  51,  9. 

2.  Lyric  Poetry ,  ii.  259-282. 

Fr.  v.  Matthisson.  Gedichte  (Mannheim,  1787)  ;  Schriften,  8  vols.  (Zurich, 
1825-29). 

Fr.  Hoiderlin.  Gedichte  (Stuttg.,  1826)  :  collected  works,  2  vols., 
(Stuttg.,  1846).  See  Godeke  ii,  1124.  A.  Jung,  F.  H.  und  seine  Werke 
(Stuttg.,  1848).  Hallensleben,  Beitr.  zur  Charakteristik  Flolderlins  (Amstadt, 
1849,  Rrogr.)  >  W.  Hoffner,  H.  und  die  Ursachen  seines  Wahnsinns  (Wester- 
mann's  deutsche  Monatshefte  Mai.  1867,  p.  155).  J.  Volkelt,  F.  H.  (Im 
neuen  Reich,  1880,  No.  37)  ;  Sch.  Vortr.  und  Aufs.  p.  346.  J.  Klaiber,  Hoiderlin, 
Hegel  und  Sc’nelling  in  ihren  schwabischen  Jugendjahren  (Stuttg.,  1877); 
Wilbrandt  Hist.  Taschenb.,  v.  Folge  1,  371. 

Joh.  Peter  Hebei.  Works,  8  vols.  (Karls.,  1832-34).  Briefe  von  J.  P.  H.  an 
einen  Freund  (Mann.,  i860,  Appendix  1862).  Aus  Hebels  Briefwechsel 
(Freib.,  i860)  ;  Fr.  Becker,  J.  P.  Hebei  (Basel,  i860)  ;  see  Langin,  J.  P.  H. 
(Karls.,  1875 ).—Joh.  Martin  Usteri.  Poems,  ed.  Dav.  Hess.,  3  vols.  (Berl. 
1831).  For  poetry  in  local  dialects,  see  Godeke,  £§  308,  346. 

Novalis.  (Fr.  v.  Hardenberg).  Works,  ed.  by  Fr.  Schlegel  and  Tieck,  2 
vols.  (Berl.,  1802  ;  5th  ed.,  1837)  ;  3rd  vol.,  ed.  by  Tieck  and  E.  v.  Biilow 
(Berl.,  1846);  F.  v.  H.  eine  Nachlese  (Gotha,  1873).  Novalis,  Briefwechsel 
mit  F.  und  A.  W.,  Charlotte  und  Caroline  Schlegel,  ed.  by  Raich  (Mainz, 
1880).  See  Dilthey,  Preuss.  Jahrb.,  xv.  596. 

Patriotic  Poetry.  Godeke,  §311  (iii,  225-240)  ;  The  songs  of  the  Burschen- 
schaft,  ibid.  §  316  (iii,  258-266). — E.  M.  Arndt.  See  R.  Haym,  Preuss. 
Jahrb.  v.  G.  Freytag,  A.  D.  B.,  i.  54 1  ;  Monogr.  E.  Langenberg  (Bonn, 
1865)  ;  v.  Loper  in  Schnorr's  Archiv  ii.  546  ;  Arndt’s  Briefe,  Preuss.  Jahrb.  34, 
5S9.  E.  M.  A.  Briefe  an  eine  Freundin,  pub.  by  E.  Langenberg  (Berl.,  1878). 

Justinns  Kcrner.  See  Strauss,  Kl.  Schriften,  new  series,  p.  298  ;  Marie 
Niethammer,  J.  K.  Jugendliebe  (Stuttg.,  1877). — Ludwig  Uhland.  There  are 
va'ious  editions  of  his  poems  and  dramas,  that  of  1876  (3  vols.,  pub.  by  W.  L. 
Holland)  contains  a  chronological  table  of  the  poems  (ii.  316).  A.  v.  Keller, 
U.  als  Dramatiker  (Stuttg.,  1877)  ;  Uhland’s  Schriften  zur  Geschichte  der 
Dichtung  und  Sage,  8  vols.  (Stuttg.,  1865-73),  See  L.  U.  Leben  von  seiner 
Wittwe  (Stuttg.,  1874);  Fr.  Fischer,  Kritische  Gar.ge,  new  series,  iv.  97  (and 
for  the  Wiirtemberg  authors  in  general,  Krit.  Gange,  i  4-78)  ;  H.  v.  Treitschke, 
Histor.  und  polit.  Aufslitze  (Leipz.,  1865^,  p.  278  ;  G.  Liebert,  L.  U.  (Hamburg, 
1857);  O.  Jalin>  L.  U.  (Bonn,  1863);  F.  Notter,  L.  U.  (Stuttg.,  1863);  Gihr. 


Chapter  XIII. 


401 


U.  Leben  (Stuttg.,  1864)  ;  K.  Mayer,  L.  U.  seine  Freunde  und  Zeitgenossen,  2 
vols.  (Stuttg.,  1867).  For  t  e  ballads  and  romances,  Diintzer  Erl.  (Stuttg., 

1876)  ;  H.  Eichholz  Quellenstudien  zu  Uhlands  Balladen  (Berl.,  1879). 

A.  v.  Chamisso.  Works,  6  vols.  (Leipzig,  1836-49);  see  Varnhagen,  Briefe 
von  Chamisso,  Gneisenau,  &c.,  i.  135  :  Fulda,  Ch.  und  seine  Zeii.  (Leipz.,  1881)  : 
— I.  v.  Eichendorff.  Sammtliche  poetische  Werke,  4  vols.  (3rd  ed.,  Leipz.,  1883) : 
Vermischte  Schriften,  5  vols.  (Paderborn,  1866). —  Wilhelm  Miiller .  Ver- 
mischte  Schriften,  ed.  G.  Schwab,  5  vols.  (Leipz.,  1830) :  Gedichte  von  W.  M. 
with  introduction  by  F.  Max  Muller,  2  parts  (Leipz.,  1868). 

Goethe's  Westostlicher  Divan.  Commentary  byC.  Wurm  (Nuremberg,  1834); 
von  Loper’s  annotated  edition  (Berl.,  Hempel)  ;  ed.  Simrock,  with  extracts 
from  the  book  of  Kabus  (Heilbronn,  1875);  Diintzer  in  the  Erl.  (Leipz., 
1878). — Friedrich  Riickert.  Gesarnmelte  poetische  Werke,  12  vols.  (Frankf., 
1867,  69;  last  ed.,  1882).  See  Fortlage,  F.  R.  und  seine  Werke  (Frankf.,  1867)  ; 
C.  Beyer,  F.  R.  ein  biographisches  Denkmal  (Frank.,  1868);  Nachgelassene 
Gedichte,  F.  R.  und  neue  Beitrage  zu  dessen  Leben  und  Schriften  (Vienna, 

1877)  ;  G.  Voigt,  F.  R.  Gedankenlyrik  nach  ihrem  philosophischen  Inhalte  dar- 
gestellt  (Annaberg,  1881)  ;  see  too  A.  Sohr,  Heinrich  Riickert  (Weimar, 
1880). — August  Graf  von  Platen- Haller miinde.  Ed.,  2  vols.  (Stuttg.,  1876); 
3  vols.  (Berl.,  Hempel)  ;  see  Platen’s  Tagebuch  (Stuttg.,  i860),  and  the  works 
mentioned  in  Godeke  (3,  571). 

Heinrich  Heine.  Sammtl.  Werke,  21  vols.  (Hamb.,  1861-63)  ;  see  A. 
Strodtmann,  H.  H.’s  Leben  und  Werke,  2  vols.  (Berl.,  1867,  69). 

3.  Narrative  Writing ,  ii.  pp.  282-301. 

See  the  passage  on  narrative  poetry  in  Koberstein,  vol.  5,  p.  3155.  On 
romances,  Eichendorff,  Der  deutsche  Roman  des  i8n  Jh.  in  seinem  Verhaltnis 
zum  ChrLtenthum  (Paderb.  1866). 

Epics.  Ernst  Schulze  (Sammtl.  poet.  Werke,  3rd  ed.,  5  parts,  Leipz.  1855, 
with  life  by  R.  Marggraff).  A.  Blumauer  (Die  travestirte  zEneide,  ed.  by 
E.  Grisebach,  Leipz.  1872).  Karl  A.  Kortum  (Jobsiade,  13th  ed.,  by 
Ebeling,  Leipz.  1868).  Arnim ,  Gedichte,  p.  212.  4  Geschichte  des  Mohrenjun- 
gen,’  from  the  Dolores  i.  233,  (ed.  1840). 

Novels.  '‘Anton  Reiser ,’  see  W.  Alexis  in  Prutz,  Lilterarhist.  Taschenb. 
1847,  p.  1-71  ;  E.  Schmidt,  Richardson,  Rousseau,  und  Goethe,  p.  289; 
‘  Siegwart ,’  see  E  Schmidt,  302.  4  Siegfried  von  Lindenbcrg ,’  (latest  ed.  Leipz., 
1 867 ) .  Jean  Paid  Friedrich  Richter ,  Sammliche  Werke,  60  vols.  (Berl.  1826- 
28),  33  vols.  (Berl.  1840-42) :  see  R.  O.  Spazier,  J.  P.  F.  R.  ein  biographi- 
scher  Commentar  zu  dessen  Werken,  5  vols.  (Leipz.  1833),  and  besides  the 
books  mentioned  by  Godeke,  ii.  1121,  E.  Forster,  Denkwiirdigkeiten  aus  dem 
Leben  von  J.  P.  F.  R.,  4  vols.  (Munich,  1863)  ;  P.  Nerrlich,  J.  P.  und  seine 
Zeitgenossen  (Berl.  1876):  Briefe  von  Charlotte  von  Kalb  an  J.  P.  und 
des=en  Gattin,  ed.  P.  Nerrlich  (Berl.  1882) :  K.  C  Planck,  J.  P.’s  Dichtung  im 
Lichte  unserer  natioaalen  Entwicklung  (Berl.  1867)  :  Fr.  Visclier,  Kritische 
Gange,  new  series  vi.  133 

Tales.  Gottlieb  Meissner ,  (see  A.  Meissner,  Rococobilder,  2nd  ed.,  Lindau 
and  Leipz.,  1876). — 4  Undine ,’  on  its  origin,  Fouque  in  his  4  Musen,’  1812,  Part 

VOL.  II.  D  d 


402 


Bibliography. 


iv.  p.  198  ;  Theophrastus  alluded  to  the  Knight  of  Staufenberg,  so  that  the 
poem  written  in  rhymed  couplets  about  1300  by  Eckenolt,  a  follower  of  Konrad 
of  Wurzburg,  and  printed  at  Strassburg  in  1480,  and  modernised  by  Fischart 
in  1588  (ed.  Janicke,  Altdeutsche  Studien,  Berl.  1871),  still  exercised  an 
influence. — *  Schemihl?  for  its  origin  see  Chamisso,  vi.  117,  Fulda,  p.  125-136. 
For  the  superstition  see  Grimm,  Myth.  976  ;  Miillenhoff,  Schleswig-holstein- 
ische  Sagen,  p.  554:  Rochholz,  Germ.  v.  69,  175 — Hoffmann,  Gesammelte 
Schriften,  12  vols.  (Berl.,  latest  1871-73),  see  Hitzig,  Aus  H.'s  Leben  und 
Nachlass,  2  vols.  (Berl.  1823):  Z.  Funck,  Aus  dem  Leben  zweier  Dichter 
(Bamberg,  1836). 

Goethe.  1  Wilhelm  Meister ;  ’  see  F.  Gregorovius,  Goethe’s  W.  M.  in  seinen 
socialistischtn  Elementen  entwickelt  (Konigsb.  1849)  :  A.  Jung,  G.  Wander- 
jahre  und  die  wichtigsten  Fragen  des  19°  Jh.  (Mainz,  1854)  :  Diintzer,  Erl.  For 
the  astronomical  Episode,  W.  Forster  in  Westermann’s  Monatshefte  46,  330, 
see  47.  130.  ‘  Die  Wahlvemvandschaften ,’  see  Rotscher  Abh.  zur  Philosophie 

der  Kunst,  Part  2,  (Berl.,  1838)  :  Diintzer,  Erl.;  H.  Grimm,  Fiinfzehn  Essays, 
p.  239  ;  Brahm,  Zs.  xxvi  194.  A  letter  by  Minchen  Herzlieb,  the  supposed 
original  of  Ottilie,  has  been  published  by  Martin,  Zs.  xxvi.  376. 

4.  The  Drama ,  ii.  pp.  301-335. 

Goethe .  ‘A  Christian  martyr,  in  early  Saxon  times?  see  v.  Biedermann, 
Goethe  =  Forschungen,  p.  154  --‘Pandora,’  Diintzer,  G.  Prometheus  und  Pandora 
(Leipz.  1850).  Erl.  (1874).  Scholl,  G.  (p.  418);  Sch.,  Deutsche  Rundschau, 
April,  1879. 

Theodor  Korner.  Sammtl.  Werke,  ed.  K.  Streckfuss,  (Berl.  1834) — 
Ohlenschlager.  Schriften,  18  vols.  (Breslau,  1S29,  30):  Werke,  21  vols. 
(Breslau,  1839) — Zacharias  Werner.  Ausgew.  Schriften,  13  vols.  (Grimma, 
1841) :  see  Ilitzig,  Lebensabiiss  F.  L.  Z.  Werners  (Berl.  1823)  :  H.  Diintzer, 
Zwei  Bekehrte  (Leipz.  1873):  E.  Schmidt,  Schnorrs  Archiv  vi.  233:  A. 
Hagen,  Altpreuss.  Monatsschrift  xi.  8.  p.  625. — The  fate-tragedies,  see  O.  Brahm, 
Schnorrs  Archiv  ix.  207  ;  J.  Minor,  Die  Schicksals  tragodie  (Frankf.  1883). 

Karl  Immermann.  K.  I.  2  vols.  (Berl.  1870);  Werke,  (Berl.,  Hempel). 
On  the  ‘  Frederick  II,’  see  Raupach  to  Immermann  in  Holtei,  Dreihundert 
Briefe  aus  2  Jahrhunderten  (Hanover,  1872),  iii.  6o.  Christian  Grabbe.  Gott- 
schall,  2  vols.  (Leipz.,  1869) ;  Blumenthal,  4  vols.  (Detmold,  1874V  Raupach. 
Godeke,  iii.  531-553.  For  the  Nibelungcn  in  modem  poetry  see  G.  R.  Rope, 
Die  moderne  Nibelungendichtung,  (Hamb.  1869)  ;  H.  von  Wolzogen,  Der 
Nibelungenmythos  in  Sage  und  Litteratur  (Berl.  1876)  ;  K.  Rehom,  Die 
deutsche  Sage  von  den  Nibelungen  in  der  deutschen  Poesie  (Frankf.  1877): 

J.  Stammhammer,  Die  Nibelungen-Dramen  seit  1850  (Leipz.  1878). 

Heinrich  von  Kleist.  Gesammelte  Schriften,  ed.  Tieck,  revised  by  Julian 

Schmidt  (Berl.  1859);  Werke  (Berl.  HempeL:  see  R.  Kohler,  Zu  H.  von  K. 
Werken  (Weimar,  1862)  ;  H.  v.  K.  Politische  Schriften,  ed.  R.  Kopke  (Berl. 
1862) ;  E.  von  Biilow,  H.  von  K.  Leben  and  Briefe  (Berl.  1848);  H.  von  K. 
Eriefe  an  seine  Schwester  Ulrike,  ed.  A.  Koberstein  (i860):  H.  von  K.  Briefe 
an  seine  Brant,  ed.  K.  Biedermann  (Breslau,  1884') ;  see  A.  Wilbrandt  H.  von 

K.  (Nordlingen,  1863);  Th.  Zolling,  H.  v.  K.  in  der  Schweiz  (Stuttg.,  1882) ; 


Chapter  XIII.  403 

E  Schmidt,  in  the  Osterr.  Rundschau,  Part  2  (Vienna,  1883),  p.  127.  Julian 
Schmidt  Preuss.  Jahrb.  37,  593  ;  O.  Brahrn,  H.  v.  K.  E.  (Berlin,  1884)  ;  also 
Lloyd  and  Newton,  Prussia’s  representative  man  (London,  1875). 

Drama  in  Vienna.  See  H.  M.  Richter,  Geistesstromungen  (Berl.,  1875). 
Wlassak,  Chronik  des  K.  K.  Hof  Burgtheaters  (Vienna,  1876).  Godeke  has 
done  good  service  in  the  history  of  the  popular  Theatre  (iii.  796-845).  Sauer 
in  the  ‘  Wiener  Neudrucke  5  gives  in  Nos.  2  and  4  pieces  by  Kurz,  and  C.  G. 
Klemm. — -J.  Schreyvogel  (adopted  name,  West) ;  see  A.  Schonbach,  J.  Schrey- 
vogel  West  (Appendix  to  the  Wiener  Abendpost  1879,  Nos.  52-56). 
Griliparzer.  Sammtliche  Werke,  10  vols  (Stuttg.  1872)  :  (Theob.  v.  Rizy.) 
Wiener  Griliparzer- Album  (Stuttg.,  1877):  see  Sch.,  Vortr.  und  Aufs.  p.  1 93— 
307,  and  the  works  there  mentioned,  p.  196;  Faulhammer,  F.  G.  (Gratz, 
1884);  G.  Wolf,  Grillp.  a!s  Archivdirector  (Vienna,  1874) :  L.  A.  Frankl,  Zur 
Biographie  F.  G.  (Vienna,  1883).  Raimund.  Sammtliche  Werke,  ed.  Glossy 
and  Sauer,  3  vols  (Vienna,  1881).  A  characteristic  letter  of  Raimund  on  the 
4  Verschwender  ’  is  given  in  Schnorrs  Archiv  v.  279. 

Faust.  On  the  historical  Faust :  (Text,  vol.  i.  299)  W.  Creizenach,  in  the 
A.  D.  B.  vi.  583.  There  is  a  reprint  (Halle,  1878)  of  the  first  ed.  of  the  ‘  His¬ 
toric,’  and  a  photographic  facsimile  in  Sch.,  Deutsche  Drucke  alterer  Zeit,  ii. 
(Beil.  1884),  Faust’s  Leben  by  G.  R.  Widmann,  pub.  by  A.  v.  Keller  (Tub. 

1880)  is  in  fact  the  Faust- book  of  Dr.  PJitzer.  On  the  origin  of  the  popular 
book  see  Hermann  Grimm,  Fiinfzehn  Essays,  3rd  Series,  p.  192 — The  Faust  of 
Marlowe  was  introduced  to  the  German  public  by  Wilhelm  Muller,  in  a 
translation  (Berl.  1818,  with  a  Preface  by  A.  v.  Arnim).  On  its  history  in 
Germany  see  W.  Creizenach,  Versuch  einer  Geschichte  des  Volksschauspiels 
vom  Dr.  Faust  (Halle,  1878)  ;  also  F.  Lichtenstein,  in  the  Zs.  fiir  osterr.  Gymn. 
1879,  P-  There  was  a  performance  at  Berlin  which  was  perhaps  attended  by 
Lessing,  June  14,  1754  tSchnorrs  Archiv  xi.  175):  another  at  Strassburg, 
where  Goethe  may  have  been  present,  in  1770  (ibid.  viii.  360) — On  Lessings 
Faust  E.  Schmidt  in  the  Goethe  Jahrbuch  ii.  65  (also  iii.  77,  iv.  127,  as  an 
introduction  to  Goethe’s  Faust).  The  Johann  Faust  of  Weidmann  exists  in  a 
reprint  by  E.  Engel  (Oldenburg,  1877).  For  the  Faust  of  Julius  v.  Voss  see 
W.  Menzel’s  Deutsche  Dichtung,  iii.  219.  Goethe's  Faust.  Annotated 
editions  by  Loper  (2nd  ed.  Berl.  1879),  Schroer  (Heilbr.  1881);  Diintzer 
(Berl.  and  Stuttg.).  Commentaries:  Schubarth  (Berl.  1830);  Deycks, 
(Frankf  1855)  ;  W.  E.  Weber  (Halle,  1836)  ;  C.  H.  Weisse  (Leipz.,  1837)  ; 
Leutbecher  (Nuremberg,  1838);  E.  Meyer  (Altona,  1847);  H.  Diintzer 
(Leipz.,  185s,  also  Erl.);  Hartung  (Leipz.,  1855);  Kostlin  (Tiib.  i860); 
Kreyssig  (Berl.,  1866) ;  Sengler  (Berl.,  1875)  ;  K.  Fischer  (Stuttg.,  1877)  5 
Marbach  (Leipz.,  1881);  Schreyer  (Halle,  1881).  See  Julian  Schmidt  (Preuss. 
Jahrb.  39,  361)  and  Fr.  Vischer,  Krit.  Gange,  ii.  49  :  new  series,  iii.  135  ; 
Krit.  Bemerkungen  fiber  G.’s  Faust,  Part  1  (Zfirich,  1857)  ;  G ’s  Faust,  neue» 
Beitrage  zur  Kritik  des  Gedichts  (Stuttg.,  1875)  ;  Altes  und  Neues,  ii.  (Stuttg., 

1881) ,  p.  1.  See  Sch.,  AusG.’s  Friihzeit,  Q.  F.  xxxiv.  76,  94  ;  Max  Rieger,  G.’s 
Faust  nach  seinem  religiosen  Gehalte  (Heidelberg,  1 181),  p.  37  ;  and  also  Sch., 
in  Deutsche  Rundschau,  1884,  May. 


D  d  2 


APPENDIX  TO  THE  BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


1.  The  Aryans,  pp.  3-6. 

On  anecdotes ,  fairy  stories  and  short  tales,  Scherer’s  Poetik,  p.  14  (Ber¬ 
lin,  1888).  On  riddles ,  Wilmanns,  Zs.,  xx.  p.  252. 

2.  Germanic  Religion,  pp.  6-9. 

On  Dyaus,  the  Aryan  Heaven-God,  Sitzungsber.  d.  Berl.  Ak.,  1884, 
p.  571.  The  Conception  of  Sundgund.  See  Denkm.,  p.  276. 

3.  Oldest  Remains  of  Poetry,  pp.  10-15. 

On  the  priests  as  proclaimers  of  the  law,  Brunner,  Deutsche  Rechts- 
geschichte,  i.  (Berlin,  1887),  p.  143. 

1.  The  Heroic  Songs,  pp.  19-27. 

Employment  of  Runes,  Wimmer,  Die  Runenschrift  iibers.  Von  Hol- 
thausen  (Berlin,  1887). 

3.  The  Merovingians,  pp.  32-37. 

On  the  origin  of  Irish  Christianity,  Zimmer,  Kettische  Studien,  ii.  p. 
197. 

2.  The  Mediceval  Renaissance,  pp.  46-53. 

Hermann  Grimm,  Das  Reiterstandbild  des  Theodorich  zu  Achen  (Berlin, 
1869).  The  St.  Gall  literature  of  the  old  high  German  period  is  comprehen¬ 
sively  treated  by  Baechtold,  Gesch.  d.  dtsch.  Litt.  in  der  Schweiz,  i.  Lief. 
(Frauenfeld,  1887).  Zeumer  shows  that  Notker  Balbulus  is  the  author  of 
the  Gesta  Karoli,  Historische  Aufsatze  dem  Andenken  an  Georg  Waitz 
gewidmet  (Hannover,  1886). 

Roswitha  :  Studien  u.  Mittheilungen  aus  dem  Benedictiner-und  Cister- 
tienser-Orden  Jahrg. ,  5. 

3.  The  Wandering  Journalists,  pp.  53-59. 

Concerning  the  expression  Journalists ,  see  Breslau  Konrad,  II.  (Leipzig, 
1884)  2,  392.  Seelmann’s  correction  of  Denkm.,  No.  18,  on  the  mixed  Latin 


Bibliography.  40  5 

and  German  poetry  in  the  Song  of  Otho  the  Great,  and  Henry,  in  Nd. 
Jahrb.,  12,  78. 

1.  Latin  Literature ,  pp.  62-71. 

Rudlieb ,  Zs.,  29.  1. 

2.  Lady  World ,  pp.  71-79. 

‘  Annolied,'  Wilmanns’  Beitr.  z.  Gesch.  d.  alt.  dtsch.  Litt.,  2  (Bonn, 
1886).  ‘  Kaiserchronik?  Schroeder,  in  press. 

Worship  of  the  Virgin.  See  Norrenberg,  Beitr.,  9,  412. 

3.  The  Crusades ,  pp.  79-91. 

Lambrecht' s  Alexander,  Kinzel  (Halle,  1884),  Konrad's  Rolandslied,  con¬ 
cerning  its  sources  ;  Golther,  des  Rolandslied  des  Pf.  K.  (Munich,  1886). 

Shorter  Epics  :  ‘ Konig  Rother ,’  see  Germ.,  29,  257  ;  ‘  Orendel Berger 
(Bonn,  1888)  ;  St.  Oswald ,  Berger,  Beitr.,  11,  365. 

Graf  Rudolf  ,  for  the  sources,  Singer  Zs.,  30,  379.  On  the  legend  of  the 
sleeping  emperor  and  its  application  to  Frederick  II.,  Hausner  Kaiser- 
sagen,  Progr.  (Bruchsal,  1881). 

2.  The  Nibelungenlied,  pp.  101-115. 

MS.  (A)  of  the  Nibelungenlied  (phototype  copy,  with  introduction  by 
Leistner,  Munich,  1886). 

4.  Ortnit  and  Wolfdietrich ,  pp.  1 20-1 23. 

‘  Ortnit^  Seemtiller  Zs.,  26,  201. 

The  Epics  of  Chivalry ,  p.  136. 

The  ‘  Tristan  ’  of  Eilhard  von  Oberge ,  eine  Altcechische  Uebertragung 
Zs.,  28,  261.  See  Knieschek,  Wiener  Sitzungsb. ,  101,  319,  und  Lichtenstein, 
Zs.,  28.  Anzi.  For  the  sources  :  Romania,  15,  481  ;  Golther,  Tristan  und 
Isolde  (Munich,  1887). 

1.  Heinrich  von  Veldeke ,  pp.  1 37-145. 

Veldeke's  followers:  Otte ,  author  of  ‘  Eraclius.’  See  Schroeder,  G.  G.  A., 
1884,  p.  '563. 

2.  Hartmann  von  Aue  and  Gottfried  von  Strassburg,  pp.  145-161. 

Heinrich  del  Glichezare ,  Reissenberger  (Halle,  1S86).  For  the  sources, 
Martin,  Observations  sur  le  roman  de  Renart  (Strassb. ,  1887). 

Friedrich  von  Hausen ,  Heimat :  Zs.  32,  41.  Reinmar  von  Hagenau. 
Burdach  ;  Zs.  28,  13,  gegen  Becker,  Der  altheimische  Minnesang  (Halle, 
1885).  Schultz,  Zs.  31,  185  refers  to  an  imitation  of  the  Trouv^re  Auboin 
de  Sezane. 


406 


Appendix. 


Hartmann  von  Aue ,  H.  Kauffmann.  On  Hartmann’s  Lyrik  (Diss. 
Leipz.,  1884),  ‘  Gregoiius ,’  Latin,  translated  by  Arnold  von  Lubeck  (c.  1210), 
published  by  Buchwald  (Kiel,  1886).  Kolbing,  Beitr.  z.  Gesch.  d.  romant. 
Poesie  im  M-A.  (Breslau,  1876).  Sulisch,  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil.  19,  385.  ‘  Derarme 
Heinrich .’  Wackernagel  (published  by  Toischer,  Basel,  1885). 

Iwein.  Original  :  Der  Lowenritter  (Yvain)  des  Christian  v.  Troyes.  Ed. 
W.  Forster  (Halle,  1887) ;  in  addition,  Rotteken,  Die  Epische  Kunst  Hein¬ 
richs  von  Beldeke  u.  Hartmanns  v.  A.  (Halle,  1887). 

Gottfried  von  Strassburg.  Bahnsch,  Tristanstudien  (Progr.  Dantzig,  1885). 

3.  Wolfram  von  Eschenbach,  pp.  161-176. 

Parzival  and  Titurel.  Botticher,  Das  Hohelied  vom  Ritterthum,  eine 
Beleuchtung  des  Parzival  (Berlin,  1886). 

For  the  date  of  the  works,  Stosch,  Zs.  27,  313. 

On  the  ‘ Tageliedl  Romer,  Volksth.  Dichtungsarten  der  Prov.  Lyrik 
(Marburg,  1884),  p.  3  ;  de  Gruyter,  Das  deutsche  Tagelied,  Diss  (Leipz. 

1887). 

4.  Successors  of  the  Great  Chivalrous  Poets ,  pp.  176-186. 

The  ‘ Lanzelet  ’  of  Ulrich  von  Zetzikon.  See  Schiitze,  Das  Volksthuml. 
Element  im  Stile  U.  v.  Z.  (Diss  Greifswald,  1883).  Original,  G.  Paris, 
Romania,  10,  465. 

Freshly  invented  Epics.  The  *  Garel  vom  bliihenden  Thai,’  Steinmeyer, 
G.  G.  A.,  1887,  No.  21. 

Continuations  of  Wolfram's  and  Gottfried' s  works.  For  the  MSS.  see 
Lohmeyer  (Cassel,  1883). 

Rudolph  von  Ems.  ‘  Alexander,’  see  O.  Zingerle,  Die  Quellen  zum 
Alexander  des  R.  v.  E.  (Breslau,  1885,  Weinhold's  Germanist,  Abh.  4). 

Konrad  von  Wurzburg.  On  page  180  it  is  asserted  that  K.  v.  W.  died 
at  the  same  time  as  his  wife  and  daughters.  This  error  has  been  recently 
corrected  by  A.  Schulte  (Zs.  f.  die  Gesch.  des  Oberrheins,  40,  495). 

The  disciples  of  Wolfram  von  Eschenbach.  ‘  Lorengel,’  see  Elfter,  Beitrage 
zur  Kritik  des  L.  Beitr.  10,  81.  *  Der  Heilige  Georg,’ see  Zs.  32,  Anz.  145. 

Bruno  von  Schonebeck.  A.  Fischer.  Das  Hohe  Lied  des  B.  v.  Sch. 
(Breslau,  1886,  Weinhold’s  Germanist,  Abh.  6). 

VII.  Poets  and  Preachers,  pp.  187-234. 

The  ‘  Wartburgktieg.’  Strack,  Zur  Gesch.  d.  Gedichtes  vom  Wkr.  Diss. 
(Berlin,  1883).  Wilmanns,  Zs.  28,  206,  Anz.  326. 

2.  Minnesang  and  Meistersang,  pp.  201-212. 

The  Schweitzer  Minnesanger,  herausg.  von  Bartsch  (Frauenfeld,  1886). 
Uhich  von  Lichtenstein.  Bechstein  (Leipzig,  1887).  Johann  Hadlaub , 
Bartsch,  Schweizer  MS.  No.  27. 


Bibliography . 


407 


3.  Didactic  Poetry,  Satire  and  Tales,  pp.  212-222. 

Mit  Kd7iig  Tirol.  Leitzmann  (Halle,  1887).  Werner  von  Elmendcrf  \ 
Sauerland ,  Zs.,  30,  I. 

A  rich  but  wholly  uncritical  selection  from  the  instructive  literature  of  the 
fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries  is  to  be  found  in  Vetter  12,  2. 

The  so-called  Set fried  Helbing.  Edited  by  Seemtiller  (Halle,  1886). 

Enenkel.  Strauch,  Zs.  28,  35.  The  ‘  Weinschwelg,’  published  with  a 
translation,  Lucae  (Halle,  1886). 

4.  The  Mendicant  Orders,  pp.  222-234. 

On  the  Heretics.  K.  Muller,  Die  Waldenser  (Gotha,  1886). 

Brother  Berthold  of  Regensburg.  On  the  tradition,  see  Schonbach,  Zs.  25, 
Anz.  337  ;  Zs.  28,  Anz.  31.  Meister  Eckhart,  Denifle,  M.  E.’s  lateinischen 
Schriften  und  die  Grundlage  s.  Lehre  im  Archiv.  f.  Litt.  und  Kirchen- 
Geschichte  des  M.  A.,  2,  417. 

Opposition  to  the  Papal  Power.  Of  late  it  has  been  maintained  that  the 
most  widely  circulated  translation  of  the  Bible  before  Luther  was  of  heretical 
Waldensian  origin. 

VIII.  The  Close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  pp.  235-270. 

On  the  discovery  of  printing.  See  further,  Kapp,  Geschichte  des  deutchen 
Buchhandels  bis  ins  17  Century  (Leipzig,  1886). 

1.  The  Drama,  pp.  238-246. 

Froning,  Zur  Geschichte  u.  Beurth  d.  geistl.  Speile  des  M.  A.  (Frankf. 
1884). 

Wackernell,  Die  altesten  Passionsspiele  in  Tyrol  (Vienna,  1887). 

Sterzinger  Spiele,  ed.  O.  Zingerle,  Vienna,  1886  (Vienna  Neudrucke,  9, 
11).  Mittelniederdeutsche  Fastnachtspiele,  ed.  W.  Seilmann  (Norden,  1885). 
Luzerner,  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil.,  17,  347. 

Stage  and  Scenery.  Brandstetter,  Die  Regenz  bei  der  Luzerner  Oster- 
spielen  (Lucerne,  1886). 

Dramatic  Varieties.  Holthausen,  Germ. ,  31,  no. 

1.  Mysteries ,  or  Miracle  Plays,  (b)  Passion  and  Easter  plays.  Lange, 
Die  lateinischen  Osterfeiern  (Munich,  1887). 

4.  Macropedius  (D.  Jacoby,  A.  D.  B.  20,  19,  Progr.  Berl.  1886). 

Albrecht  von  Eyb,  his  Griseldis,  ed.  Strauch,  Zs.  29,  372  :  his  translations, 
Gunther,  Plautuserneuerungen  in  der  D.  Litt.  d.  15-17  Jh.  (Diss.  Leipz. 
1886). 

2.  Songs  and  Ballads,  pp.  246-253. 

V  oiks  lied.  Ballads  :  Meyer  von  Kronau,  Die  Schweiz,  hist.  Volkslieder 
des  15  Jh.  (Zurich,  1870). 


408 


Appendix. 


The  evidence  afforded  by  the  Limburger  Chronicle  in  the  Jahrb.  f.  musik. 
Wissenschaft,  i,  15,  is  to  be  corrected  by  the  new  edition  of  the  Chronicle 
by  Wysz  in  the  Mon  Germ.  Deutsche  Chroniken,  4,  1  (Hanover,  1883). 

3.  Rhymed  Couplets ,  pp.  253-259. 

On  the  middle  low  German  literature  in  general,  see  Ltibben  in  the  Jahr- 
buch  des  Ver.  fur  niederdeutsche  Sprachforschung,  1,  5;  Seelmann  in  s. 
Ausg.  des  (falschen)  Gerhard  von  Minden  (Bremen,  1878),  P.  IX. 

Reineke  Fuchs.  Ysengrimus,  Ausg.  Voigt  (Halle,  1884);  Le  Roman  de 
Renart,  Martin,  3  vols.  (Strassb.  1882-87).  Martin,  Observations  sur  le 
roman  de  Renart  (Strassb.  1887).  Prien  (Halle,  1887)  on  the  high  German 
translation,  Prien  (Prog.  Neumiinster,  1887). 

Sebastian  Brand.  Martin,  A.  D.  B.,  23,  67;  new  edition.  ‘  Miihle  von 
Schwindelsheim,’  Strassb.  Stud.  2,  1;  ‘  Geistliche  Badenfahrt,’  by  Martin 
(Strassb.  1887). 

4.  Prose ,  pp.  259-264. 

Other  Prose  Writings :  Sermons.  Schonbach,  Altdeutsche,  Predigten  I. 
(Graz.  1886);  Linsenmayer,  Gesch.  der  Predigt.  in  Deutschland  bis  zum 
Ausgang  des  14  Jh.  (Munich,  1886). 

5.  Humanism ,  pp.  264-270. 

A  work,  whose  lack  hitherto  has  been  sorely  felt,  is  just  beginning  to 
appear:  G.  Kaufman,  Die  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Universitaten,  vol.  i., 
Vorgeschichte  (Stuttgart,  1888). 

On  the  Erfurt  Circle.  The  correspondence  of  Mutianus  Rufus,  ed. 
Krause  (Cassel,  1885),  Einert,  Grotus  Rubianus  Zs.  der  Ver.  f.  thiir. 
Gesch.,  12,  3. 


1.  Martin  Luther ,  pp.  272-282. 

Of  the  great  complete  critical  edition  of  Luther’s  works,  vols.  1-4  have 
appeared  (Weimar,  1883-S6);  of  the  former  issue,  published  first  in  Erlangen, 
then  in  Frankfort,  now  in  Calwer,  there  have  appeared  vols.  1-20  and 
24-26,  in  two  editions  (Frankfort,  1863-1885). 

His  Position  with  Regard  to  the  New  Learning.  Werckshagen,  Luther 
und  Hutten  (Wittenberg,  1888). 

Translation  of  the  Bible.  L.  Keller  connected  with  the  Codex  Teplen- 
sis  his  hypothesis  of  the  Waldensian  origin  of  this  most  widely  circulated 
translation  of  the  Bible  previous  to  Luther;  for  the  literature  of  this  ques¬ 
tion,  see  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil.  20,  1  ff. ,  W.  Kraft,  Ueberdie  d.  Bibeliibers.  vorL.  u. 
dessen  Verdienste  um  dieselbe  (Bonn,  1883). 

Language.  P.  Pietsch,  Martin  Luther  und  die  hochdeutsche  Schrift- 
sprache  (Breslau,  18S3);  K.  Burdach,  Die  Einigung  der  neuhochdeutschen 


Bibliography. 


409 


Schriftsprache  (Leipzig,  1884);  Kluge,  Von  Luther  bis  Lessing  (Strassburg, 
1888);  Schroeder,  Gott.,  Gel.  Anz.  1888,  No.  7.  On  Grammars ,  Reiffer- 
scheid,  A.  D.  B.,  24,  301. 

2.  Luther  s  Associates  and  Successors ,  pp.  282-290. 

On  Johann  Eberlin  von  Gunzburg.  M.  Radlkoser  (Nordl.  1887).  The 
‘  Grobianus’  of  Kaspar  Scheid ,  see  Strauch,  Vierteljahrschr.,  1,  64.  For  the 
Bildergedichten,  Wendeler,  Schnorr’s  Archiv,  12,  485;  new  edition  of  the 
Geschichtklitterung  v.  Alsleben  (Halle,  1887),  see  G.  Schwarz,  Rabelais  und 
Fischart  (Halle,  1885). 

8.  Secular  Literature ,  pp.  290-300. 

On  Wimpfeling.  Martin,  Translation  of  the  Germania  W’s  (Strassburg, 
1885)  and  Strasb.  Stud.  3,  470.  German  Autobiographies .  Gotz,  von  Ber- 
lichingen ,  ed.  by  Franck  von  Steigerwald,  new  edition  by  Bieling  (Halle, 
1888). 

The  Latin  Poets.  There  is  a  comprehensive  list  of  them  in  Goedeke,  2d 
ed.,  §  1 13. 

Translations.  Hartfelder,  Deutsche  Uebersetzungen  klass.  Schriftsteller 
aus  dem  Heidelberger  Humanistenkreis  (Heidel,  Progr.  1884). 

Fables.  Luther's  Fables.  Edited  from  the  manuscript  by  Thiele  (Halle, 
1888).  For  Spangenberg,  Ausgew.  Dichtungen  von  W.  Sp.  (Elsass,  Litt. 
Denkm.,  4,  Strassburg,  1887). 

Secular  Songs,  v.  Waldberg,  Die  Deutsche  Renaissancelyrik  (Berlin,  1888). 

4.  The  Drama  from  1517-1620,  pp.  300-314. 

Luther  and  the  Drama.  Bolte,  Mark.  Forsch.,  18,  194  f. 

Various  sorts  of  Drama.  For  Joseph  hi  Egypt,  A.  von  Weilen,  Der 
segyptische  Joseph  im  Drama  des  16th  Jh.  (Vienna,  1887). 

Lutheds  Circle.  Thomas  Naogeorg ,  G.  Schmidt,  A.  D.  B.,  23,  245. 

English  Actors.  Meissner,  Die  Englische  Comodianten  in  Oesterreich 
(Vienna,  1884).  Schnorr’s  Archiv,  13,  315,  14,  113.  Landgrave  Maurice  of 
Hesse.  Duncker,  Deutsche  Rundschau  Aug.  1886.  Goedeke,  2d,  522. 

5.  The  Thirty  Years'  War,  pp.  314-330. 

Witkowski,  Diederich  von  dem  Werder  (Leipz.  1887).  Borinski,  Die 
Poetik  der  Renaissance  und  die  Anfange  der  literar.  Kritik  in  Deutschland 
(Berlin,  1886). 

Martin  Opitz.  Veranek  M.  O.  in  seinem  Verhaltniss  zu  Scaliger  und 
Ronsard  (Progr.  Vienna,  1883).  Fritsch,  M.  O.,  Buch  von  der  ‘  Deutschen 
Poeterei  ’  (Halle,  1884),  Beitr.  10,  591  ;  Sievers  Beitr.  10,  205  ;  Borinski,  p. 
56,  1 14.  On  the  German  Hiatus,  Scherer,  Abhandlungen  in  den  Commen- 
tationes  Mommsenianae  (Berlin,  1877,  p.  213). 


410  Appendix. 

Simon  Dach.  Gedichte  des  Konigsberger  Dichterkreises,  ed.  by- 
Fischer  (Halle,  1883). 

Johann  Rist.  Dichtungen  ed.  von  Goedeke  und  Gotz.  (Leipz.  1885)  ; 
see  Gaedertz,  Niederdeutsches  Schauspiel  (Berlin,  1884),  1.  34  ;  Akad  Bll., 
1.  385,  441  ;  i.  Walther,  Zs.  28,  Anz.  103. 


1.  Religion  and  Science ,  pp.  335-359. 

Justus  Georg  Schoitelius.  Jacoby,  Zs.  23,  Anz.  172. 

Martin  von  Cochem.  The  most  reliable  account  of  his  life  and  works  is 
given  in  the  book  of  the  Mentz  nun,  Maria  Bernhardina,  P.  Martin  von 
Cochem  (Mentz,  1886)  ;  the  passage  quoted  is  taken  from  a  Munich  edition 
of  the  great  Life  of  Christ  of  the  year  1682  (Breslau  Stadtbibliothek). 
“Judas  der  Ertzschelm,”  Auswahl  von  Bobertag  (D.  N.  L.)  ;  see  Mareta 
on  J.  d.  E.  (Vienna,  1875). 

Protestants.  ZinzendorJ ,  Becker,  Z.  im  Verhaltniss  zu  Philosophic  und 
Kirchenthum  s.  Zeit  (Leipzig,  1886). 

Pufendorf,  Breslau,  A.  D.  B.,  26,  701. 

♦ 

2.  The  Refiyiement  of  Popular  Taste ,  pp.  359-382. 

Bombast.  The  lyrical  poetry  of  this  period  is  described  by  Von  Wald- 
berg,  Die  galante  Lyrik,  Q.  F.,  56(Strassb.  1885),  and  Deutsche  Renaissance- 
Lyrik  (Berlin,  1888). 

Patriots  and  Satirists.  On  the  ‘  Armincultus/  see  J.  Riffert  Herrig’s 
Archiv,  63,  129,  241  ;  v.  Hofmann,  Willenhoff  Grazer  Progr.  (1887). 

Johami  Laure7nberg.  Monogr.  L.  Daae  Om  Humanisten  og  Satiriken, 
Johann  Lauremberg  (Christiana,  1884). 

Popidar  Songs.  Schwieger’s  Geharnschte  Venus,  reprint  (Halle,  1888). 
For  Greflinger,  Boltc,  Zs.  31,  Anz.  103. 

Christian  Weise.  Fulda,  Die  Gegner  d.  2  Schles.  Schule,  Bd.  2  (D. 
N.  L.). 

French  Influence  and  the  Opposition  to  it  in  Prussia.  Canitz ,  Monogr. 
Lutz  (Munich,  1887). 

Johann  Christian  Giinther.  Ausg.  Fulda,  D.  N.  L. 

English  Influence.  K.  Jacoby,  Die  ersten  Moral.  Wochenschriften 
Hamburgs  (Hambr.  Progr.  1888)  ;  W.  Kawerau,  Aus  Magdeburgs  Ver- 
gangenheit  (Halle,  1886).  Further,  Th.  Vetter,  Der  Spectator  als  Quelle 
der  ‘Discurse  der  Maler  ’  (Frauenfeld,  1887). 

Albrecht  von  Haller.  Seuffert,  Zs.  28,  Anz.  239.  C.  Bodemann,  Von  u. 
liber  A.  v.  H.  (Hannover,  1885).  See  letters  from  Anna  Maria  von  Hage- 
dorn  to  her  younger  son,  Christian  Ludwig,  1731-32,  edited  by  Litzmann 
(Hamburg,  1885)  ;  Eigenbrodt,  H.  und  die  Erzahlung  in  Reimversen  (Ber¬ 
lin,  1884). 


Bibliography.  411 

3.  The  Novel ,  pp.  382-393. 

Bobertag,  Gesch.  des  Romans,  ii.  2  (Berlin,  1884). 

Schelmujfsky.  Reprint  of  the  two  parts  (Halle,  1885)  ;  see  Ber.  d.  Sachs. 
Ges.  d.  Wiss.,  1887,  pp.  44,  253,  306.  On  Reuter  as  a  playwright,  see 
Schlenther,  Frau  Gottsched,  p.  123  ;  Ellinger,  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil.,  20,  289. 
Robinson  Crusoe.  Strauch,  Zs.  f.  Gesch.  u.  Politik,  1888,  p.  537. 

4.  The  Dra,7na ,  pp.  393-401. 

Artistic  and  School  Drama.  Gottsched.  Schlenther,  Frau  Gottsched,  p. 
83.  Riihle,  Das  Deutsche  Schaferspiel  im  18  Jh.  Diss.  (Halle,  1885). 

Popular  Drama.  Der  Ungliickseelige  Todesfall  Caroli  XII.  ed.  C. 
Heine  (Halle,  1888),  on  Magister  Velthen ,  Heine,  Johannes  Velten  (Diss. 
Halle,  1887). 

XI.  The  Age  of  Frederick  the  Great,  ii.  pp.  1-141. 

A.  Schone,  Akad  Bll.  I,  569,  and  p.  415. 

1.  Leipzig ,  ii.  pp.  2-19. 

Krause,  Friedrich  d.  Gr.  und  die  deutsche  Poesie  (Halle,  1884),  p.  87  ;  see 
also  Litzmann,  Zs.  30,  204. 

Johann  Christoph.  Gottsched.  Litzmann,  Liscow,  p.  129.  H.  Peter, 
Pflege  der  deutschen  Poesie  auf  den  sachs.  Fiirstenschulen  (Meissen,  1884). 
Frau  Gottsched.  P.  Schleuther,  Frau  Gottsched  u.  die  burgerl.  Komodie, 
(Berlin,  1886)  ;  her  letters  edited  by  Von  Frau  von  Runckel,  3  vols.  (Leipzig 
und  Dresden,  1771,  72). 

Johann  Elias  Schlegel.  W.  Soderhjelm,  Om  Johann  Elias  Schlegel 
(Helsingfors,  1884),  his  aesthetic  and  dramatic  criticism  in  Seuffert’s  Litter- 
aturdenkm.  d.  18  u.  19  Jh.  No.  26  by  Antoniewicz.  On  the  Bremer  Beitrager, 
Letters  of  the  Circle,  Prohle,  Masius’ Jahrbucher,  1876,  if.  Gottlieb  Wilhelm 
Rabener ,  P.  Richter,  Rabenerund  Liscow  (Progr.  Dresden,  1884),  D.  Jacoby, 
A.  D.  B.,  27,  78,  f. 

2.  Zurich  and  Berlin ,  ii.  pp.  19-47. 

Bodmer  and  his  Circle.  Chronik  der  Gesellschaft  der  Mahler  (Bodmer, 
Breitinger,  Joh.  Meister),  1721-22,  ed.  byTh.  Vetter  (Frauenfeld,  1887). 

Frederick  the  Great.  Reprint  of  the  paper  De  la  litterature  allemande, 
by  L.  Geiger  (Seuffert,  16,  Heilbronn,  1883),  see  B.  Suphan,  Fr.  d.  Gr. , 
Schrift  liber  die  Deutsche  Litteratur  (Berlin,  1888). 

Th.  Vilmar  Ueber  die  Quellen  der  Histoire  de  la  guerre  de  sept  ans  F.  d. 
Gr.  (Strassburg,  Diss.,  1888). 

Halle.  C.  Schmidt,  A.  D.  B.,  26,  784.  Thirsis  und  Damon’s  ‘  Freund- 
schaftliche  Lieder,’  by  Pyra  and  Lange.  Reprint  by  Sauer,  Seuffert,  No 
32  (Heilbronn,  1885). 


412 


Appendix. 


Ewald  Christian  von  Kleist.  A.  Chuquet,  De  Ewaldi  Kleistii  vita  et 
scriptis  (Parisiis,  1887).  Ramler ,  Schiiddekopf  K.  W.  Ramler  bis  zu  s. 
Verbindung  mit  Lessing  (Lpz.  Diss.  1886). 

Klopstock.  A  critical  edition  of  the  odes,  by  Muncker  and  Pawel,  is  an¬ 
nounced  for  1888  ;  biography  by  F.  Muncker,  F.  G.  Kl.  s.  Leben  und  s. 
Schriften  (Stuttgart,  1888).  Klopstock’s  Sprache  :  Wurfl.  Herrig’s  Archiv, 
1881,  Progr.  Briinn,  1883-85. 

Wieland.  Minor  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil.  19,  219.  Keil,  W.  und  Reinhold 
(Leipzig,  1885).  Schnorr’s  Archiv,  13,  188,  485.  C.  Ranke,  Zur  Beurtheil- 
ung  Wieland’s  (Marburg,  1885).  Seuffert  has  a  monograph  in  view. 

3.  Lessing ,  ii.  pp.  47-82. 

Collected  Editions.  Lachmann,  3  Ausg. ,  edited  by  Muncker,  Vols.  I- 
3  (Stuttg.  1886-87).  Nachtrage  und  Berichtigungen  (Berlin,  1886). 

Philosophy  and  Theology .  G.  Spicker,  Lessing’s  Weltanschauung 

(Leipzig,  1883). 

Dramas.  R.  M.  Werner,  Lessing’s  Em.  Gal.  (Berlin,  1882),  compare  Zs. 
27,  Anz.  61. 

Nathan  der  Weise.  John  Fiske,  The  Unseen  World,  pp.  147-168 
(Boston,  1876). 

For  Abbt,  Pentzhorn,  Th.  A.  (Berlin,  1884). 

4.  Herder  and  Goethe,  ii.  pp.  82-114. 

Hamann.  Briefe  an  Nicolai,  Vierteljahrschr.  1,  116. 

Goethe's  Youth.  Martin,  by  Seuffert,  14  (Heilbr.  1883),  Goethe  Jahrb. 

7,  3-15 1.  Minor  Zs.  f.  allgem.  Gesch.  1886,  Briefe  von  Goethe’s  Mutter  an 
der  Herzogin  Anna  Amalia  (Schriften  der  Goethe-Gesellschaft,  I,  Weimar, 
1885).  C.  Schmidt,  Charakteristiken,  p.  249.  Frankfurter  Liebe  u.  ‘  Die 
Mitschuldigen,’  Aufsatze  uber  Goethe,  p.  29. 

5.  The  Literary  Revolution  and  the  Illuminati,  ii.  pp.  114-141. 

J.  M.  P.  Lenz.  Dram.  Nachl.,  ed.  Weinhold  (Frankr.,  1884).  DieSici- 
lianische  Vesper,  ed.  Weinhold  (Breslau,  1887).  Sauer,  L.  u.  Wagner 
(D.  N.  L.).  Froitzheim,  Lenz,  Goethe  und  Cleophe  Fibich  von  Strassburg 
(Strass.,  1888),  und  Urkundl.  Forschungen  zu  Strassburg’s  Sturm-  und 
Drangperiode,  1770-1776. 

F.  M.  Klinger.  Pfeiffer  Klinger’s  Faust  (Wurzburg,  Diss.,  1887). 

Schiller.  Rieger,  Schiller’s  Verhaltniss  z.  franz.  Revolution  (Wein,  1885). 

C.  F.  D.  Schubart.  Critical  edition  of  his  poems  by  G.  Hauff 
(Reclam’s  Universal  Bibliothek,  1821-24).  Schubart  in  seinem  Leben  und 
seinen  Werken  (Stuttgart,  1885).  G.  Nagele,  Aus  Schubart’s  Leben 
und  Werken  (Stuttg.,  1888). 

Martin  Miller,  C.  Schmidt,  A.  D.  B.,  21,  750. 


Bibliography. 


413 


T.  L.  Stolberg.  Schnorr’s  Arch.,  13,  82,  251  ;  Zs.  f.  d.  Phil.,  18,  477. 

/.  H.  Voss.  Selections  by  Sauer,  D.  N.  L.  Polle  Briefe  von  Ernestine 
Voss  (Progr.  Dresden,  1882-83).  Redlich,  Chiffernlexicon  zu  den  Gbttinger, 
Vossischen,  etc.  Musenalmanachen  (Hamb.,  1875). 

G.  A.  Burger.  Eine  humorist.  Sangerfehde  entschieden  durch  G.  A.  B. 
(Berlin,  1874).  C.  Schmidt,  Charakteristiken,  p.  199. 

J.  K.  Lavater.  Muncker,  J.  K.  L.  (Stuttgart,  1883). 

M.  Claudius.  Redlich,  die  poet.  Beitrage  z.  Wandsb.  Boten  (Hamb., 

1871). 

On  the  Berliner,  Monatschrift,  H.  Prohle,  der  Dichter.  G.  v.  Gockingk 
tiber  Berlin  und  Preussen  unter  Friederich  Wilhelm  II  und  III  in  der  Zs. 
f.  Preuss.  Gesch.  14  (1877). 

Moses  Mendelssohn.  Monogr.  Kayserling,  2  Aufl.  (Leipzig,  1888). 

1.  Goethe ,  ii.  pp.  145-170. 

Collected  Editions.  Of  the  great  historical  and  critical  edition  executed, 
under  the  patronage  of  the  Grand  Duchess  of  Saxony  ;  5  vols.  have  appeared 
(Weimar,  1887). 

Biographies ,  Characteristics ,  etc.  Burdach,  Die  Sprache  des  jungen  G. 
(Verhandlungen  der  Dessauer  Philologenversammlung,  p.  166).  Abhand- 
lungen  z.  G.  Leben  und  Werken,  2  vols.  (Leipzig,  1885).  Goethe’s  Eintritt 
in  Weimar  (Leipzig,  1883).  Harnach,  G.  in  der  Epoche  seiner  Vollendung 
(1805-1832),  (Leipzig,  1887).  V.  Hehn,  Gedanken  iiber  G.  (Berlin,  1887). 
G.  und  die  Sprache  der  Bibel,  Goethe -Jahrbuch,  8,  187.  Henkel,  das 
Goethesche  Gleichnis  (Halle,  1S86). 

A.  Langguth,  Goethe’s  Padagogik  (Halle,  1886)  ;  O.  Lucke,  Goethe  und 
Homer  (Nordhausen,  1885)  ;  Minor,  Goethe’s  Jugend  nach  neuen  Quelle, 
Zs.  f.  Allgem.  Gesch.  1886,  pp.  603,  663. 

Letters  and  Conversation,  Connection  with  Persons  and  Places.  The 
Goethe- Jahrbuch  gives  letters  from  and  to  Goethe  in  every  issue.  The 
collected  letters  of  Goethe  are  comprised  in  Abtheilung  iv.  of  the  great 
Weimar  edition  ;  21  letters  of  G.  to  Behrisch  (1766-1768),  Goethe-Jahr- 
buch,  7,  76-118  ;  Goethe’s  und  Carlyle’s  Briefwechsel  (Berlin,  1887)  ;  C. 
Schmidt,  Charakteristiken,  p.  332  ;  15  Briefe  an  die  Schwester  Cornelie 
Goethe  (1765-1767),  Goethe-Jahrbuch,  8,20  ;  Suphan  Deutsche  Rundschau, 
Juli,  1888,  Goethe-Jahrbuch,  7,  3-75.  Schriften  der  Goethe-Ges.  2,  317- 
348;  Goethe-Jahrbuch,  8,  61,  v.  d.  Hellen  Goethe’s  Antheil  an  Lava- 
ters  Physiognom.  Fragmenten(Frkft.  a.  M.,  1888),  the  most  important  Leip¬ 
zig  letters  to  Cornelie  and  Behrich,  Goethe-Jahrb.,  7,  3,  151.  Ulrike  v. 
Levezow,  Goethe-Jahrb.,  8, 165.  Briefe  von  Goethe’s  Frau  an  N.  M.  (Strass- 
burg,  1887)  ;  Goethe’s  Briefe  au  Fr.  Rochlitz,  published  by  W.  V.  Bieder. 
mann  (Leipzig,  1887). 

Zarncke  Goethe’s  Notizbuch  von  der  schlesischen  Reise,  1790  (Leipzig, 
1884).  C.  Schmidt,  Charakteristiken,  p.  302  ;  Tagebticher  und  Briefe 


4l4 


Appendix. 


Goethe’s  aus  Italien  an  Frau  von  Stein  und  Herder  (Schriften  der  Goethe- 
Gesellschaft,  2,  Weimar,  i836,  Briefw.  zwischen  Goethe  und  Kaspar  Graf 
von  Sternberg,  published  by  Bratranek,  Vienna  (1886). 

Briefw.  mit  Graf  Uwarow,  Russiche  Revile  vol.  17,  131. 

Aufsatze  iiber  Goethe,  p.  235.  C.  Schmidt,  Charakteristiken,  p.  321. 
L.  Hirzel,  Goethe’s  Beziehungen  zu  Zurich  (Zurich,  1888). 

Religion  and  Science.  O.  Harnach,  Goethe  in  d.  Epoche  seiner  Vollen- 
dung  (Leipzig,  1887).  R.  Steiner,  Grundlinien  einer  Erkenntnistheorie  der 
Goethe’schen  Weltanschauung  mit  bes.  Riicksicht  auf  Schiller(Stuttg.,i886). 
R.  Steiner  in  der  D.  N.  L. 

Poems.  Pniower  Zs.  23,  Anz.  400. 

Egmont.  Minor,  Grenzboten,  1883,  Nr.  7. 

lphigenie.  K.  Fischer,  Goetheschriften,  I.  (Heidelberg,  1888). 

Tasso.  F.  Kern,  Goethe’s  Torquato  Tasso  (Berlin,  1888). 

Italienische  Reise.  Best  of  all,  Tagebiicher  und  Briefe  G.  aus  Italien 
(Weimar,  1886),  mit  der  Einl.  von  C.  Schmidt.  Kleine  Schriften  zur  Kunst 
von  Heinrich  Meyer  ed.  by  Weizsacker  in  Seuffert’s  Litteraturdenkmalen, 
25  (Heilbronn,  1886).  lphigenie  in  Delphi ,  Aufsatze  iiber  Goethe,  p.  161. 

2.  Schiller  and  Goethe ,  ii.  pp.  1 70-1 99. 

Diintzer  treats  of  the  alliance  of  Goethe  and  Schiller  in  the  Goethejahr- 
buch,  2,  168,  a  treatise  that  I  must  oppose  in  all  its  essential  features. 

The  Theatre.  Litzmann,  Schroder  und  Gotter  (Hamburg,  1887). 
Iffland.  Iffland,  Meine  theatralische  Laufbahn.  Reprint  through  Hol¬ 
stein  by  Seuffert,  Heft  24,  Heilbronn. 

The  Natural  Daughter.  W.  C.  Weber,  Vorl.  zur  ^Esthetik  (Hanover, 
1831). 

Wilhelm  M Aster' s  Lehrjahre.  J.  Minor,  Die  Aufange  des  W.  M.  Goethe- 
jahrbuch,  9,  163.  Ellinger,  Der  Einfluss  von  Scarrons  Roman  comique  auf 
W.  M.,  ibid.  p.  188. 

Her?nan  und  Dorothea.  N.  Jahrb,  der  Berl.  Gesellsch.  298.  Bielschowsky, 
Preuss.  Jahrb.  60,  335. 

3.  Schiller ,  ii.  pp.  199-228. 

Letters.  Goethejahrb.  8,  37  (Letters  from  Charlotte  von  Schiller  to  S.) 
Speidel  und  Wittmann,  Bilder  aus  der  Schillerzeit  (Stuttg.,  1885). 

Biographies ,  Characteristics ,  etc.  Brahm,  Schiller,  vol.  1  (Berlin,  1888). 
Rieger,  Sch.  Verhaltniss  zur  franzosischen  Revolution  (Vienna,  1885). 
Schanzenbach,  Franzos.  Einfliisse  auf  Schiller  (Stuttg. ,  1885,  Progr.)  Ueber- 
weg,  Sch.  als  Historiker  und  Philosoph.  (Leipz.,  1884).  Weltrich,  Fr.  Sch., 
1  Lief.  (Stuttg.,  1885). 

The  Dramas.  See  Hettler,  Sch.  Dramen.  eine  Bibliographic  (Berlin,  1885). 

Don  Carlos.  Elster,  Zur  Entstehungsgeschichte  des  D.  C.  (Halle,  1889). 

Maid  of  Orleans.  Hebler,  Philosoph.  Aufsatze,  p.  138. 


Bibliography.  415 

1.  Science,  ii.  pp.  231-259. 

The  Improve77ient  of  the  Language.  Burdach,  Zs.  f.  d.  ost.  Gymn.,  1882, 

p.  668. 

Moral  Science.  0.  Lorenz,  Die  Geisteswissenchaft  in  ihren  Haupt- 
richtungen  u.  Aufgaben  (Berlin,  1888). 

Ludwig  Tieck.  Selected  writings  by  Minor  (D.  N.  L.).  Gesammelte 
Novellen,  Minor,  Akadem.  Bll.  1,  129,  193.  J.  L.  Hoffman,  L.  T.  (Niirn- 
berg,  1856).  A.  W.  Schlegel :  Minor,  A.  W.  Sch,  1804-45,  Zs.  f.  d.  ostG., 
1SS7,  5QO,  733- 

Later  Roi?iantic  School.  Brentano.  Brentano’s  Gustav  Wasa.  Reprint 
by  J.  Minor  (Seuffert,  15,  Heilbronn,  1883). 

Briider  Grimm.  A.  Duncker,  Die  Briider  Grimm  (Cassel,  1884) ; 
Stengel,  Private  und  amtliche  Beziehungen  der  Briider  Grimm  zu  Hessen, 
2  vols.  (Marburg,  1886),  Correspondence  between  J.  and  W.  Grimm,  Dahl- 
mann  und  Gervinus,  ed.  by  E.  Ippel,  2  vols.  (Berlin,  1885-86). 

2.  Lyric  Poetry,  ii.  pp.  259-282. 

Fr.  LLolderlin.  Dichtungen  mit  biograph.  Einl.  von  Kostlin  (Tub.  1884) ; 
Schnorr’s  Archiv,  13,  358  ;  15,  6r  ;  Vierteljahrschrift,  1,  269. 

Joh.  Peter  Hebei.  Behaghel,  B.riefe  von  J.  P.  H.  (Karlsruhe,  1883). 

Novalis.  Monogr.  Schubart  (Gutersloh,  1887). 

E.  M.  Arndt.  Loesche  (Gotha,  1884). 

Justinus  Kerner.  Poems,  3d  edition,  2  vols.  (Stuttgart,  1841).  Bil- 
derbuch  aus  der  Knabenzeit,  2  Abdr.  (Stuttg.  1886). 

Ludwig  Uhland.  H.  Fischer,  L.  U.  (Stuttg.  1886)  ;  Haffenstein,  L.  U. 
s.  Darstellung  der  Volksdichtung  und  das  volksthiimliche  in  s.  Gedichten 
(Leipzig,  1887)  ;  W.  L.  Holland,  Ueber  Uhlands  Ballade  ‘  Merlin  der 
Wilde’  (Stuttg.  1876). 

L.  v.  Eichcndorjf.  Gedichte  aus  dem  Nachlass,  hrsg.  v.  Meisner  (Leip¬ 
zig,  1888)  ;  Monogr.  Keiter  (Cologne,  1887). 

Wilhelm  Muller.  A.  D.  B.,  22,  683. 

Goethd s  Westostlicher  Divan.  Burdoch  in  der  Weimarer  Ausg.  Fried¬ 
rich  Ruckert ,  Poet.  Tagebuch,  1850-1866  (Frankf.  1888);  P.  de  Lagarde, 
Erinnerungen  au  F.  R.  (Gott.,  1886). 

ILeinrich  Heine.  Critical  edition  by  Elster,  5  vols.  (Leipzig,  1887-88). 
The  parallelism  with  Brentano  is  indicated  by  Grisebach  (Die  Deutsche  Lit- 
teratur,  Vienna,  1876,  p.  258.). 

3.  Narrative  Writing ,  ii.  pp.  282-301. 

Epics.  A.  Blumauer ,  Monogr.  v.  Hofmann-Wellenhof  (Vienna,  1885). 

Romances.  '‘Anton  Reiser.'  Reprint  by  Geiger  in  SeufTert’s  Litteratur- 
denkm.  Nr.  23  (Heilbronn,  1886).  Ulrich  Hegner’s  gesammelte  Schriften, 
5  vols.  (Berlin,  1828-30).  See  G.  Geilfuss,  Aus  dem  Leben  U.  H.  (Neue 


4i  6 


Appendix. 


Zuricher  Zeitung,  1883,  Nr.  313-318,  1884,  Nr.  16-23),  Akadem.  Bll.  1,  412. 
Siegwart,  C.  Schmidt,  Charakteristiken,  p.  178.  1  Siegfried  von  Lindenberg ,’ 
Muncker,  A.  D.  B.,  22,  789.  Jean  Paul  Friederich  Richter ,  Firmery, 
Etude  sur  la  vie  et  les  oeuvres  de  J.  P.  P.  (Paris,  1886).  Goethe ,  ‘  Wil¬ 
helm  Meister,’  concerning  Fellenberg’s  Institute  as  the  original  of  the 
Psedagogical  Province,  see  F.  X.  Kraus  (Hempel,  20,  239,  269),  also  Bertheau, 
Goethe  u.  s.  Beziehungen  zur  Schweitzerischen  Baumwollenindustrie  (Wetzi- 
kon,  1888).  Letters  by  Minchen  Herzlieb,  the  supposed  original  of  Ottilie, 
in  Gaedertz’,  Goethe’s  Minchen  (Bremen,  1887).  For  the  original  of  Luciane, 
Correspondence  between  J.  and  W.  Grimm,  p.  193. 

4.  The  Dra7na ,  ii.  pp.  301-335. 

Goethe.  Schuchardt,  Romanisches  und  Keltisches  (Berlin,  1886),  p.  120. 

Carl  Immermann.  Fellner,  Geschichte  e.  deutschen  Musterbiihne 
(Stuttg.  1888). 

Hehirich  von  Kleist.  Edition  Zolling  (D.  N.  H.).  R.  Weissenfels,  Zs.  f. 
vergl.  Litteraturgesch  1,  273,  ff.  N.  F.  1,  301. 

Dra?na  in  Vienna.  Jos.  Schreyvogel.  Collected  works,  4  vols.  (Braun- 
schw.  (1829).  Giillparzer ,  4th  ed.  by  A.  Sauer,  with  Biography  (1887). 
Laube,  F.  G.,  Lebensgeschichte,  Stuttg.  1884.  R.  M.  Werner,  Allgem.  Zeit. 
Beil.  1884,  No.  154-160  ;  Volkelt,  F.  G.,  als  Dichter  des  Tragischen  (Nordl. 
1888).  Raimund.  C.  Schmidt,  Charakteristiken,  p.  381  ;  Sauer,  A.  D.  B., 
27  Anhang. 

Faust.  K.  Engel,  Zusammenstellung  der  Faust-Schriften  vom  16  Jh. 
bis  1884  (Olden,  1885)  ;  Faligan,  Histoire  de  la  legende  de  Faust  (Paris, 
1888).  On  the  origin  of  the  popular  book,  see  C.  Schmidt,  Goethejahrb.,  3, 
77  ;  4,  127. 

Ellinger,  Zs.  31,  Anz.  156,  Zs.  f.  vgl.  Littgesch,  N.  F.  1,  166  ;  Szama- 
tolski  Vierteljahrschr.,  J,  161. 

The  Faust  of  Marlowe.  Ed.  Alex.  Dyce  (1850,  1876), W.  Wagner  (Lon¬ 
don,  1877),  A.  W.  Ward  (Oxford,  1878),  (concerning  Marlowe’s  sources,  das 
engl.  Volksbuch,  Zarncke  Anglia,  9  ;  610),  Ereizenach,  Der  alteste  Faust- 
prolog  (Krakau,  1887)  ;  Liibke,  Zs.  31,  105.  Goethe' s  Faust.  Goethe-Jahrb., 
6,  231  ;  Aufsatze  iiber  Goethe,  pp.  293-355  ;  Erich  Schmidt’s,  Goethe’s 
Faust  in  urspriinglicher  Gestalt  nach  der  Gochhausenschen  Abschrift 
(Weimar,  1887,  compare  also  Vol.  14  of  the  Weimar  Edition). 


INDEX. 


Abbt,  Thomas,  ii.  59,  86,  347,  387. 
Abraham  a  Sancta  Clara,  i.  340,  359  ; 

ii  3io,  345,  380. 

Academy  della  Crusca,  i.  317. 
Ackermann.  Johannes,  ‘Ackermann 
aus  Bohmen,’  i.  263,  373. 
Ackermann,  actor,  ii.  67,  175. 

‘Acta  Eruditorum,'  i.  373;  ii.  345, 

383. 

Adam,  Melch,  i.  376. 

Adam  Werner  ofThemar,  see  Themar. 
Addison,  i.  3 75  ;  ii.  24,  56,  280. 
Adelung,  German  Dictionary,  ii.  4. 
Aeneas  Sylvius,  i.  260  (‘Euryalus  and 
Lucretia’),  266;  ii.  340,  373. 
Agricola,  Johann,  Proverbs,  i.  295 ; 
ii.  342,  347:  Tragedy,  ‘John  Huss,’ 
i.  308;  ii.  342,  378. 

Aist,  Dietmar  von,  i.  195,  196 ;  ii. 
339’  366. 

Aix-la-Chapelle,  i.  47. 

Ajax  of  Sophocles,  remodelled  at 
Strassburg,  i.  397  ;  ii.  343. 

Albertus Magnus,  i.  229,  354;  ii.  339, 
368. 

Alberus,  Erasmus,  i.  294 ;  ii.  342, 
377- 

*  Albhart's  death,’  i.  1 1 7,  252. 
Albinger,  J.,  ii.  310. 

Albiecht,  author  of  the  later  ‘Titurel  ’ 
i.  182,  183,  188,  210,  259  ;  ii.  339, 

365- 

Albrecht  von  Eyb,  i.  245  ;  ii.  341, 
371- 

Albrecht  von  Halberstadt,  translator 
of  Ovid’s  Metamorphoses,  i.  141, 
142  ;  ii.  339,  362. 

Albrecht  von  Scharfenberg,  see  Schar- 
fenberg. 

Alcuin,  i.  39,  47,  53. 

Aldhelm,  i.  38. 

Alexander  the  Great — in  romance  and 
epic,  i.  58,  83,  178,  185,  260. 

‘  Alexander,  the  wild,’  i.  21 1  ;  ii.  367. 
Alexis,  Willibald,  ii.  285,  351. 

Alfred  the  Great,  of  England,  i.  48. 


Alsace,  i.  305  ;  ii.  95,  378. 

Alxinger,  Johann,  ii.  310. 

‘Amadis,’  i.  298,  315  382;  ii.  343. 
Amelungen  (  =  Goths),  i.  93,  94. 
Anacreontic  School,  ii.  28. 

Andrea  Valentine,  i.  314,  336;  ii.  160, 
379 

‘  Anegenge,’  the,  ii.  339,  358. 
Angelbert,  i.  47. 

Angelus  Silesius,  see  Scheffler. 

Anglo  Saxons,  i.  38,  42  ;  ii.  355. 

Anna  Amalie,  Duchess  of  Weimar,  ii. 
143’  391- 

Anno,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  i.  74  ; 
ii-  338,  338. 

Anonymous  Spervogel,  i.  191,  217; 
ii-  336,  339- 

Antichrist,  drama  of,  i.  70,  71,  83  ; 
ii-  338,  358. 

Antonius  von  Pforr,  see  Pforr. 

Anton  Ulrich,  Duke  of  Brunswick, 
author  of  hymns  and  tales,  i.  334, 
384 ;  ii  382  :  patron  of  the  Drama, 

i.  398,  400. 

‘Apollonius  of  Tyre,’  i.  58,  177,  260; 

ii.  364. 

Arabians,  i.  90. 

Archenholz,  ii.  246,  348. 

Arch-poet,  the,  i.  68,  69,  189,  191, 
210,  248  ;  ii.  338,  357. 

Aristotle,  i.  51,  68,  84,  90.  225,  229. 
Arius,  i.  29 ;  extent  of  the  Arian 
heresy,  i.  31 

Arminius  the  Cheruscan,  i.  19,  283, 
284,  365;  ii.  15,  37,  41,  381,  384, 
386. 

Arndt,  E.  M.,  ii.  247,  266,  280,  349, 
350,  400. 

Arndt,  Johann,  i.  315,  336,  342,  345  ; 
ii-  343-  379- 

Arnim,  Achim  von,  ii.  229;  ‘Des 
Ivnaben  Wunderhorn,’  ii.  252,  256, 
268,  350,  399  ;  ‘  Zeitung  fur  Ein- 
siedler,’  ii.  252 ;  Songs,  ii.  265 ; 
Comic  Romances,  ii.  283;  Tales, 

1  Hollins  Liebeleben,’  ii.  399;  ‘  Gra- 


hidex. 


41S 


fin  Dolores,’  ii.  286,  350,  401  ; 
'  Kronenwachter,’  ii.  285,  351  ; 

Novels,  ii.  294  ;  ‘  Isabella  of  Egypt,’ 
ii.  ^50  ;  his  art  of  narration,  ii.  295  ; 
Dramas,  ii.  302  ;  *  Cardenio  and 

Celinde,’  ii.  305  ;  ‘  Halle  and  Jeru¬ 
salem,’  i.  350, 

Arnim,  Bettina  von,  nee  Brentano,  ii. 
2:9.232,302. 

Arnold,  ‘  der  Pfingstmontag,’  ii.  263. 

Arnold,  Gottfried,  i.  347,  34S  ;  ii.  30, 
38i< 

Arnstein,  Count  Ludwig  von,  and  the 
Arnsteiner  Marienleich,  ii.  33S. 

Arthur-romance,  see  Romances. 

Aryan,  i.  3  5,  1 1,  12,  23  ;  ii.  354  :  see 
also  Indians. 

Athanasius,  i.  29. 

‘  Athis  and  Prophilias,’  ii.  362. 

Attila.  i.  21-23  ;  ii.  337  :  the  Elzel  of 
the  Nibelungen,  i.  109,  1 12-115. 

Aubry  von  Ee-ancon,  i.  83. 

Auersperg,  Count,  ii.  272. 

August,  the  younger,  Duke  of  Bruns¬ 
wick.  i  334. 

Augustine,  St.,  i.  66,  69,  220. 

Austria  and  the  Heroic  Songs,  i.  22, 
95,  99 ;  its  princes  as  patrons  of 
poetry,  i.  145 ;  home  of  Walther 
von  der  Yogelweide,  i.  189;  Au¬ 
strian  Satires,  i.  2 18 :  see  also  Vienna. 

Ava,  i.  75  ;  ii.  338,  358. 

Aventinus,  i.  2  ,2. 

Ayrenhoff,  C.  H.  von,  ii.  31  t,  347. 

Ayrer,  J.,  i.  311,  323,  398;  ii.  379. 

Bach,  John  Sebastian,  i.  351,  353, 
373- 

Bagge.-en,  Jens,  ii.  261,  273,  280. 

Balde,  J.,  i.  337  ;  ii-  344.  3§o. 

Ballads,  i.  251,  253;  ii.  283. 

Barditus,  i.  11  ;  ii.  354. 

Basedow,  ii  135,  347. 

Basle,  i.  244 

Battle  of  Ravenna,  song  of  the,  i. 
117. 

Baumgarten ,  Siegmund  and  Alexander, 
ii.  24,  346. 

Bavaria,  i.  10,  24;  people  of,  i.  33, 
34,  62,  85,  92,  95,  125. 

Bavle,  ii.  25. 

Rebel.  H..  i.  268,  295  ;  ii.  373. 

Bede,  i.  38. 

Beethoven,  ii.  281. 

Eeheim,  Michel,  i.  246. 

Beheim,  Mathias  von,  ii.  374. 


‘Beispell’  or  Tale,  i.  217. 

Benno,  Bishop  of  Osnabriick,  i.  56. 

Benoit  de  Saint  More,  i.  141,  181. 

Beowulf,  i.  r  6,  38. 

Berlin,  dramatic  activity,  i.  309 ; 
literary,  332,  372;  ii.  24,  29;  at 
the  time  of  Frederick  the  Great,  ii. 
1 33,  391  ;  at  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  ii.  241 ;  Lessing’s 
residence  there,  ii.  49 ;  Goethe's 
connection  with  Berlin,  ii.  259; 
Berlin  Academy,  i.  356  ;  ii.  26,  345, 
3S5  ;  University,  ii.  350 ;  Berlin 
actors,  ii.  178. 

Pernhard  of  Clairvaux,  i.  82. 

Beitesius,  Joh.,  i  313;  ii.  379. 

Berthold  of  Regensburg,  i.  226-229, 
232,  276,  280;  ii.  339,  368. 

Bertuch,  ii.  144. 

Besser,  j.  von,  i.  372  ;  ii.  345. 

Bettina,  see  Arnim. 

Beuther,  M.,  i.  255  ;  ii.  342. 

Beza,  Theodore,  i.  287. 

Bible,  translations,  i.  273;  ii.  374; 
editions,  i.  274. 

Binzer,  A.,  ii.  286. 

Birk,  Sixtus,  i.  303 ;  ii.  342,  378. 

Birken,  S.  von,  i.  323. 

Biterolf,  author  of  a  Song  of  Alex¬ 
ander,  i.  14 1. 

‘  Biterolf,’  i.  1 1 8. 

Blicker  von  Steinach,  i.  16 1. 

Blumauer,  Aloys,  ii.  282,  310,  348, 
401. 

Boccaccio,  Decamerone,  i.  57;  ii.  77, 
186:  translated,  i.  260;  ii.  372  :  by 
Witte  and  Soltau,  ii.  250. 

Bockh,  Philologist,  ii.  241,  247,  351. 

Bode,  ii.  144,  347. 

Bodmer,  J.  ii.  7,  22,  23,  37,  41, 
384  ;  ‘  Discourse  der  Maler,’  i.  376  ; 
ii.  345  :  Milton’s  ‘  Paradise  Lost,’ 
ii.  22,  229,  345  ;  Treatise  on 

the  Marvellous,  ii.  23,  346;  he 
publishes  the  Nibelungen  and 
Mlhnesingers,  ii.  123,  346;  epic, 
*  Noah,’  ii.  37  ;  ‘  Character  der  deut- 
schen  Gedichte,’  ii.  345.' 

Bohme,  Jacob,  i.  292,  337;  ii.  343, 

379 

Boie,  H.  Ch.,  ii.  120,  390. 

Boileau,  i.  371,  375  ;  ii.  14. 

Bologna,  LTniversity  of,  i.  69. 

Bondeli,  Julie,  ii.  43,  386. 

Boner,  Ulrich,  i.  221,  222,  259;  ii. 

34°,  367- 


Index. 


419 


Boniface,  St.,  i.  34.  39,  41. 

Bopp,  Franz,  ii.  351. 

Borck,  von,  translates  Shakspeare’s 

‘  Caesar,’  and  Cofife v’s  ‘  The  Devil 

* 

to  Pay,’  ii.  17. 

Borne,  ii.  231,  293,  352. 

Bottiger,  K.  A.,  ii.  143. 

Brand,  Sebastian,  i.  256,  2*8,  282, 
287,  323.  389:  ii.  130.  341,  372. 
Brandan,  St.,  i.  84,  86  ;  ii.  359. 
Brawe,  Joach.  AVilti.  von,  ii.  16,  ^3, 

384. 

Brehme,  Christian,  i.  370. 

Breitinger,  i.  376  ;  ii.  7,  22,  23 : 
Treatise  on  Similes,  ii.  23  ;  Critical 
Art  of  Poetry,  ii.  23,  31,  346. 
Bremer  Beitrage,  ii.  7.  12,  346. 
Brennenberg,  see  Reinmar. 

Brentano,  Clemens,  ii.  229,  268,  27C 
399  ;  4  Des  Knaben  Wunderhom,’ 
see  Amim ;  Ballad,  ‘  Zu  Bachara^h 
am  Rheine,’  ii.  2  78;  Romance  of 
Rosenkranz,  ii.  2 >3 ;  Tales,  ii.  294, 
35 1- 

Breton  popular  poetry,  i.  153. 
Brockes,  Barthold  Heinrich,  i.  351, 
379  :  ii.  381  ;  ‘  Irdisches  Yergnii- 
gen  in  Gott,’  i.  351;  ii.  345: 
‘  Patriot,’  i.  376 ;  translation  of 
Lamotte’s  ‘Fables,’  i.  380,  and  of 
Thomson’s  ‘Seasons,’  ii  39;  his 
Passion  Oratorio,  i.  352  ;  ii.  345. 
Briilow,  Kaspar,  i.  312,  313  ;  ii.  343. 
Bran,  Friederika,  ii.  261. 

Briinhild,  i.  9.  r.6.  105.  ic6. 

Bruno  von  Schonebeck.  see  Schone- 
beck. 

Brunswick,  ii.  70. 

Buchanan,  i.  31 1  ;  ii.  343. 

Buchner,  Aug.,  i.  32 2;  ii.  379. 
Bucholtz,  Andr.  Heinr.,  i.  333,  383 ; 
ii.  382 

Bufifon,  ii.  238. 

Bullinger,  Heinr..  i.  303. 

Burger,  Gottfr.,  Aug.,  i.  243;  ii.  122, 
547?  390- 

Burgundians,  i.  21.  31.  in  history') ;  i. 

104-1 12,  (in  the  Xibelungenlied). 
Burkard  von  Hohenfels,  see  Hohenfels. 
Bylovius,  ii.  377. 

Caedmon.  Anglo-Saxon  poet,  i.  39. 
Caesar,  i.  1.  21. 

Calderon,  how  translated,  ii.  250 ; 

his  trochees,  ii.  304. 

Calixtus,  Georg,  i.  337  ;  ii.  380. 


Canitz,  Fr.  Rud.  Ludw.  von,  i.  372, 
381  ;  ii.  29,  345. 

Casarius  von  Heisterbach,  see  Heister- 
bach. 

Castelli,  Ign.  Fr.,  ii.  263. 

Celtis,  Konrad,  i.  266  ;  ii.  341,  373. 

Celts,  i.  3,  6,  92  ;  their  legends,  i.  135, 
158,  178. 

Cervantes,  i.  62,  383  ;  ii.  289. 

Chamisso,  Adelbert  von,  ii.  271,  401  ; 
‘  Schlemihl,’  ii.  294,  296,  350,  402. 

Charlemagne,  i.  25,  36-41.  46-48,  31, 
33,  68,  273;  ii.  337,  338.  356:  in 
poetry,  i.  48,  61 ,  69,  82,  85. 

Charles  IV.,  i.  264. 

Charles  the  Bald,  i.  36. 

Chivalry,  characteristics  of,  i.  61—213  ; 
ii-  357- 

Chrestein  von  Troyes,  i.  1 53,  163,  171. 

Christ,  I.  Fr.,  ii.  64. 

Christ  and  the  woman  of  Samaria,  i. 
45  ;  ii-  356- 

Chryseus,  Joh.,  i.  30S;  ii.  342,  378. 

Clajus.  Joh.,  i.  275  ;  ii.  343,  375. 

Claudius,  ii.  125,  262,  347,  390. 

Clauert.  Hans,  see  Hans. 

Clauren.  ii.  2V8,  297.  350. 

Clauseiwitz.  General  von,  ii.  232. 

‘Claus  Xarr,  Historic  des,’  i.  298; 
ii-  343?  37 *.  . 

Clement,  the  Irishman,  i.  47. 

Clovis,  i.  21. 

Cluverius,  Phil.,  i.  367  ;  ii.  343. 

Cochem,  Father  Martin  von,  ‘  Leben 
Jesu,’  i.  339;  ii.  345.  380;  Select 
History-book,  i.  3S6  ;  ii.  35.  345, 
380.  382. 

Cocblaus.  i.  282. 

Coffey,  ‘  The  Devil  to  Pay.’  ii.  17. 

Colin,  Philipp,  of  Strasburg.  ii.  340. 

Collin.  Heinr.  Jos  von.  •  Wehrmanns- 
lieder,’ ii.  265;*  Regulus,’ ii  31 1, 
349 

Columban,  St.,  i.  33,  34,  39;  ii. 
355- 

*  Comfort  in  Despair,’  poetical  frag¬ 
ment  of  the  twelfth  century,  i.  78  ; 
ii-  35s- 

Conrad  I.,  i.  56. 

Conrad  III.,  i.  80. 

Conrad  the  younger  (ConradhT ,  i.  20 1 ; 
ii-  .339 

Conring.  Herm.,  i.  337  ;  ii.  380. 

Constantinople,  i.  29,  224  ;  in  poetry, 
i.  80.  84.  12  2. 
i  Conz,  Karl  Phil.,  ii.  261. 


420 


Index. 


Copernicus,  Nic.,  i.  257,  291  ;  ii.  163. 
342. 

Cordus,  Enricius,  i.  269. 

Corneille,  i.  141. 

Cramer,  Joh.  Andr.,  ii.  12,  383. 
Crebillon,  the  younger,  ii.  43. 

Crocus,  Cornel.,  i.  303  ;  ii.  342. 
Cronegk,  Joh.  Friedr.  von,  ii.  16,  384. 
Crotus  Rubianus,  i.  269;  ii.  373. 
Cruciger,  Elizabeth,  i.  286. 

Crusades,  i.  72,  79-89;  ii.  359. 
Cynewulf,  i.  39. 

Dach,  Simon,  i.  322-325  ;  ii.  379. 
‘Dafoe,’  opera  (text  by  Rinuccini, 
music  by  Peri),  i.  394. 

Damm,  rector  in  Berlin,  ii.  64. 

Danish  language,  i.  35  ;  literature,  i. 
261. 

Dante,  i.  222 ;  his  ‘ Divina  Commedia,’ 

i.  230,  233,  234;  translated,  ii.  250. 
Dassel,  Reinald  von,  Archbishop  of 

Cologne,  i.  68. 

Dasypodius,  Petrus,  i.  303. 

Dedekind,  Friedr.  ‘  Grobianus,’  i.  287, 
288  ;  ii.  342,  376. 

Defoe,  Daniel,  ‘  Robinson  Crusoe,’  i. 

375,  392  ;  ii.  288,  345. 

Denis,  Mich.,  ii.  57,  310,  347,  387. 
Denk,  Hans,  i  282. 

‘  Deutsch,’  i.  37  ;  ii.  355:  see  also  Ger¬ 
mans. 

Didactic  poetry,  Middle  High-Ger¬ 
man,  i.  212-215,  220,  223,  253, 
318.  375  5  ii-  358. 

Dietenberger,  Joh.,  i.  276  ;  ii.  342. 
Dietmar  von  Aist,  see  Aist. 

Dietrich  von  Bern,  (see  Theodoric  the 
Great) :  i.  93,  95,  in  the  Norwegian 
‘Saga;’  i.  m-120,  in  the  Nibe- 
lungenlied — ii.  361. 

Diez,  Friedr  ,  ii.  255. 

Dittersdorf,  ii.  177. 

Dohm,  ii.  135,  348. 

Drama,  in  its  first  beginnings,  i.  12; 
as  sacred,  ‘Antichrist  play,’ i.  70; 
‘The  Wise  and  Foolish  Virgins,’  i. 
238;  ii.  370:  Christmas,  Passion, 
Easter  and  Corpus  Christi  plays,  i. 
238-246;  ii.  370:  of  various  sorts 
(mysteries,  moralities,  farces,  sot- 
ties  =  Carnival  plays,  i.  256),  i.  242  ; 

ii.  370  :  in  prose,  i.  263  ;  increased 
love  of  the  Drama,  i.  272  ;  after 
the  Reformation,  i.  300-314;  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  Thirty  Years’  War,  i. 


317,  394;  introduction  of  Alexan¬ 
drines  by  Opitz,  i.  319  ;  influence 
of  the  opera  on  artistic  and  popular 
drama  in  the  seventeenth  and  eigh¬ 
teenth  centuries,  i.  395-401  ;  ii. 
382  :  the  Alexandrine  tragedies  sup¬ 
planted  by  the  popular  plays  of 
Lessing,  ii.  52;  tragedies  in  iambics, 
ii.  176;  the  Drama  after  Schiller’s 
death,  ii.  302  ;  technical  arrange¬ 
ments  of  the  drama  and  stage,  i. 
239-241,  312,326;  pastoral  drama, 

i.  364  ;  popular  plays  in  Vienna,  ii. 
310-314;  literature  on  the  drama, 

ii.  378. 

Diirer,  i.  41,  362. 

Eberlin  von  Gunzburg,  see  Giinzburg. 
Ebert,  Joh.  Arn.,  ii.  12,  70. 

Ebert,  Egon,  ballads,  ii.  272. 

Eck,  Joh.,  i.  276,  282,  284 ;  ii.  342. 
Eckard,  Meister,  i.  230-232,  233 ;  ii. 

34°.  368- 
Eckenolt,  ii.  402. 

Eckstein,  Uz,  i.  282,  284. 

Eginhard,  i.  47. 

Eichendorff,  Joseph  von,  lyrics,  ii. 
271,  401  ;  tale,  ‘  Ahnung  und  Ge- 
genwart,’  ii.  286,  350  ;  novel,  ‘  Tau- 
genichts,’  ii.  297,  351  ;  dramatised 
fairy  tale,  ‘Krieg  den  Philistern,’ 
ii-  351- 

Eichhorn,  K.  Friedr.,  ii.  350. 

Eike  von  Repkow,  see  Repkow. 
Eilhard  von  Oberge,  see  Oberge. 
Ekhof,  Konrad,  actor,  ii.  175,  395. 
Ekkehard  the  First  (of  St.  Gall),  i. 
49>  50,  73 

Ekkehart  IV.,  ‘  casus  sancti  Galli,’  ii. 
356- 

Eleonore  of  Scotland,  translates  ‘  Pon  • 
tus  and  Sidonia,’  i.  261. 

Elizabeth  of  Lorraine,  translates  ‘  Lo¬ 
th- r  and  Mailer,’  ‘  Hug  Schapler,’ 

i.  261. 

Elizabeth  Charlotte,  Duchess  of  Or¬ 
leans,  i.  374  ;  ii.  hi. 

Elmendorf,  Werner  von,  i.  214;  ii. 

367 

Emser,  Hier.,  i.  276,  282  ;  ii.  342. 
Enenkel,  ‘  Weltchronik,’  i.  219;  ii. 

368  ;  ‘  Fiirstenbuch,’  ii.  368. 

Engel,  romance,  *  Herr  Lorenz  Stark,’ 

ii.  288,  34.9. 

England,  English  language,  i.  35  ; 
literature,  i  261,  375  ;  ii.  383  (of 


Index. 


421 


the  eighteenth  century) ;  poet'-y,  i. 
16,  22  (Beowulf);  i.  42  (religious); 
i.  67  (Latin) ;  i.  320  (Renaissance) ; 
plays  and  actors,  i.  300,  31 1,  313, 
314,  398;  ii.  343,  379:  England 
as  the  home  of  the  sciences,  i.  334  ; 
of  piety,  i.  349,  371  ;  Euphuism  = 
English  style,  i.  361. 

Epic  poetry,  tragic  elements  of  epic 
poetry,  i.  5  ;  German  national  epics, 
i.  16  ;  ii.  359  (their  golden  age) ; 
i.  19,  21  (historical  background)  ; 
i.  22,  24  (begins  with  the  Ostro¬ 
goths)  ;  i.  33  (favoured  by  Chris¬ 
tianity)  ;  i.  62  (passes  into  the 
romances  of  chivalry)  ;  i.  74  ( see  ii. 
339),  97  (overpowered  by  the  re¬ 
ligious  epics),  i.  94-101  ;  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  heroic  songs,  and  cha¬ 
racteristics  of  the  popular  epics  of 
the  twelfth  century,  i.  155,  158; 
epics  of  chivalry,  i.  185,  186,  223, 
261  ;  decline  of  epic  poetry,  i.  253, 
259 ;  animal  epics,  i.  254,  293, 
294- 

Epigram,  i.  368. 

Erasmus,  i.  41,  268,  282,  295  ;  ii.  341, 
373- 

Erfurt,  i.  268,  269  ;  ii.  340,  373. 

Ermanarich,  i.  21 ;  ii.  337  (in  history); 

i.  22,  93  (in  legend)  ;  i.  116  (  =  Er- 
menrich,  for  Odoacer)  ;  1 20  (in 
Gothic  songs). 

‘  Ermenrich’s  Tod,’  the  song  of,  i.  120; 

ii.  361. 

Ernesti,  Joh.  Aug.,  ii.  64,  73. 

Esehenburg  translates  Shakspeare, 
ii.  230. 

Eulenspiegel,  i.  261,  298  ;  ii.  341, 
372- 

Euler,  mathematician,  ii.  26. 

Euphuism,  see  England. 

Eyb,  Albrecht  von,  see  Albrecht. 

Eyzo,  priest,  i.  80  ;  ii.  338,  359. 

Fable  (and  para  Me),  i.  217,  248,  253, 
293,  380 :  ii.  377 ;  Lessing’s  opinion, 
ii.  58. 

Farces,  i.  217,  253,  262. 

Faro  songs,  i.  95. 

Faust,  i.  298-300,  313,  330;  ii.  57, 
100,  316-334,  343,  .345,  4°3- 

Faust,  Gerard,  ii.  377. 

Fellenberg’s  Normal  Institute,  ii.  297. 

Felsenburg,  the  island  of,  i.  392  ;  ii. 
345,  382. 


Fichte,  ii.  233,  241,  247,  349,  350. 
Fielding,  ii.  44,  288. 

‘  Fierabras,’  i.  297  ;  ii.  342. 
Finckelthaus,  Gottfr.,  i.  370  ;  ii.  383. 

‘  Finkenritter,  der,’  i.  298,  390  ;  ii. 
37s- 

Fischart,  Joh.,  i.  288-290  ;  ii.  343, 
376  :  ‘  Flohhatz,’  i.  294  ;  ii.  38,  289, 
323,  377- 

Flacius,  Matth.,  i.  292  ;  ii.  376. 
Fleck,  Konrad,  i.  177  ;  ii.  364. 
Fleming,  Paul,  i.  322,  364,  373;  ii. 

344,  379 

Flore  and  Blancheflur,  i.  135,  139, 
177,  260  ;  ii.  338,  362. 

Follenius,  Karl,  ii.  268. 

Folz,  Hans,  323. 

Forster,  Reinhold  and  Georg,  ii.  236, 
237,  349,  399- 

Fouque,  Friedrich,  Baron  de  la  Motte, 
ii.  265;  ‘Undine,’  ii.  294,  350, 
402  ;  ‘  Musen,’  ii.  402  ;  ‘  Sigurd  der 
Schlangentodter,’  ii.  350. 

France :  French  songs  on  Charle¬ 
magne,  i.  61  ;  permanent  home  of 
Romanic  culture,  i.  92  ;  Latin 
popular  poetry,  i.  34,  67  ;  Latin 
dramas,  i.  301  ;  Eulenspiegel  as 
espiegle  in  French  literature,  i.  261  ; 
the  hymns  of  Calvinism  under 
French  influence,  i.  287  ;  lyrics,  see 
Troubadours  ;  Romance  literature, 

i-  135,  259,  296,  316,  385  ;  les 
beaux  esprits  and  les  Precieuses,  i. 
361,  371  ;  French  classicism  in 
Prussia,  ii.  402. 

Franck,  Seb.,  i.  282,  292,  295  ;  ii.  342, 
375,  377- 

Francke,  Aug.  Herm.,  i.  338,  372  ;  ii. 

345,  38  f. 

Frangk,  Fabian,  grammarian,  i.  275  ; 

ii-  375- 

Franks  under  the  Merovingians,  i.  21  ; 
they  spread  Christianity,  i.  33  ;  Ot- 
fried  on  the,  i.  45. 

Frauenlob,  see  Meiszen,  Heinrich  von. 
Frederick  Barbarossa,  i.  62,  66,  68. 

80,  91.  135,  137,  223,  264. 
Frederick  II,  i.  80,  89,  90,  122;  ii. 
339,  3 ;9- 

Frederick  I,  King  of  Prussia,  i.  372  ; 
ii.  382 

Frederick  William,  Kurfiirst  of  Prussia, 
i-  335- 

Frederick  William  I,  King  of  Prussia, 
i.  360,  374 ;  ii.  382. 


422 


Index. 


Frederick  II,  the  Great,  King  of 
Prussia :  his  influence  on  German 
literature,  i.  335  ;  ii.  1,  24,  29,  36, 
42,  46,  52,  59,  60,  62,  66,  73,  135, 
384:  as  author,  ii.  27,  346,  385  ; 
poem,  ‘  Au  Sieur  Gellert,’  ii.  3  ; 
‘  De  la  litterature  Allemande,’  ii. 
132,  I40,  175,  204,  240,  334,  341-8. 

Freidank,  Meister,  i.  89,  215,  216, 
220-222,  259,  295  ;  ii.  339,  367. 
Frey,  Jacob,  i.  295  ;  ii.  342. 

Friedrich  Burggraf  von  Regensburg, 
minnesinger,  ii.  339. 

Friedrich  von  Hausen,  see  Hausen. 
Frischlin,  Nicod.,  i.  309,  310,  312, 
3'6;  ii.  343,  37^- 

Frisian  law  documents,  i.  14;  ii.  354. 
Fulda,  i.  41  ;  ii.  -<56. 

Fussesbri  nnen,  Konrad  von,  i.  176; 
ii.  364 

Fiitrer,  Ulrich,  i.  258  ;  ii.  341,  372. 

Galitzin,  princess,  ii.  128. 

Gall,  St.,  i.  34,  48,  51,  58,  226;  ii. 
356- 

Gallus,  i.  34. 

Galmy,  Ritter,  see  Ritter. 

Gauss,  ii.  234,  349. 

Geiler  von  Kaisersberg,  i.  276,  280, 
282  ;  ii.  130,  375. 

Gellert,  i.  360  ;  ii.  2,  8,  12,  111,  346, 
384  :  comedy,  ‘  die  Betschwester,’ 

i.  422;  the  ‘Story  of  the  Hat,’ 

ii.  78. 

Genesis,  the  Vienna,  ii.  338,  358. 
Gentz,  Friedr.,  ii.  231. 

Geoffrey  of  Monmouth,  i.  152  ;  ii. 

3^3- 

George,  St.,  epic  in  praise  of,  i.  184; 

ii-  365 

Gerbert,  i.  53. 

Gerhardt,  Paul,  i.  333,  337,  342-344, 

349,  353.  359,  368  ;  ii.  344,  381. 
Germans  (Old),  i.  1  ;  ii.  354:  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  name,  i.  2,  3  ;  life  and 
customs,  i.  6-15  ;  epochs  of  their 
civilisation  and  of  their  oldest 
poetry ;  Old  German  hero  legends 
(as  material  for  the  German 
national  epics,  see  Epic,  as  hero- 
poetry,  see  Poetry),  hero-world,  i. 
19;  religion,  i  6-9;  ii.  354:  lan¬ 
guage  ( see  also  Goths),  contrast  be¬ 
tween  Platt  or  Low  German,  and 
High  German,  i.  35  ;  ii.  337,  355  : 
triumph  of  High  German,  i.  275  ; 


rise  of  Middle  High-German,  i.  62  ; 
its  influence,  i.  222. 

Gerson,  Joh.,  i.  265. 

Gerstenberg,  Hein.  Wilh.  von,  ‘  War- 
songs  of  a  Royal  Danish  Grenadier,’ 
ii.  56  :  *  Gedicht  eines  Scalden,'  ii. 
56,  347  :  ‘  Ugolino,’  ii.  98,  347. 

Gervinus,  Georg,  Gottf.,  ‘  Geschichte 
der  deutschen  Dichtung,’  ii.  248, 
352.  36i« 

Gesner,  Conrad,  i.  291  ;  ii.  376.’ 

Gesner,  I.  M.,  ii.  64. 

Gessner,  Salomon,  ‘  ii.  29,  38,  296, 
3  *6. 

Gleim,  J.  W.  L.,  ii.  28,  37,  260,  385  ; 
essays  in  humorous  poetry,  ii.  29, 
346  ;  ‘  Prussian  War  Songs  by  a 
Grenadier,’  ii.  54,  385  (Lessing’s  pre¬ 
face,  ii.  124),  347  ;  comic  romances, 
ii.  54 ;  *  Poems  after  the  Minne¬ 
singers,’  ‘  Poems  after  Walther  von 
der  Vogelweide,’  ii.  124,  347; 

‘Lieder  fur  das  Volk,’  ii.  347. 

Gluck,  ii.  35,  177. 

Gnapheus,  i.  303  ;  ii.  342. 

Gockingk,  Gii  ther  von,  ii.  260. 

Goethe,  i.  17,  18,  132,  139,  343 

(compared  with  Gerhardt)  ;  ii.  8 
(meeting  with  Gottsched)  ;  ii.  129 
(attitude  towards  Wielandl ;  ii.  144 
(on  Karl  August) ;  his  religion,  ii. 
102,  104,  138,  147,  i  54,  158,  161, 
164,  183,  257,  273  ;  his  youth  and 
first  writings,  ii.  91-114,  388;  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  court  of  Weimar  on 
Goethe,  ii.  145,-147  ;  first  period  as 
statesman,  ii.  149-160  ;  change  in 
Goethe  effected  by  the  journey  to 
Italy,  ii.  161-169;  Champagne  and 
Mainz,  ii.  170;  Schiller  and  Goethe, 
ii-  !7°»  349>  395-  5091  director  of 
the  Weimar  Court  Theatre,  ii.  177- 
J79>  349?  35 L  395  relations  to  the 
Romantic  School,  historical  and 
critical  writings,  ii.  256  ;  lyric  and 
epic  of  the  period,  ii.  273,  274, 
298-300;  Faust,  ii.  320-334  ;  bio¬ 
graphies,  characteristics,  collected 
letters,  ii.  391,  392  ;  his  Works 
(complete  editions),  ii.  150,  257, 
35°>  35 t,  391. 

Poetry :  Lyrics. — Poems  (edi¬ 
tions,  ii.  394),  ii.  281  ;  youthful 
poems,  ii.  93,  105  ;  poems  of  the 
first  Weimar  period,  ii.  158-161; 
poems  after  the  Italian  journey: 


Index . 


423 


*  Morgenklagen,’  4  Der  Besuch,’  ii. 
167  ;  the  Roman  Elegies,  ii.  167, 
169,  187,  349;  the  Venetian  Epi¬ 
grams,  ii.  167,  189;  ballads,  ii. 
181,  196.  Elegies — (romische,  see 
above.)  *  Euphrosyne,’  ii.  177  ; 
‘Alexis  and  Dora,’  ii.  187,  349; 
‘  Der  neue  Pausias  und  sein  Blu- 
menmadchen,.’  ii.  187,  349;  ‘  Her¬ 
mann  und  Dorothea,’  ii.  189. 
Later  Poems — ‘  Social  Songs.’  ii. 
196,  272.  349;  ‘Trilogie  der  Leiden- 
schaft,’  ii.  190,275;  4  Westostliche 
Divan.’  ii.  190,  273-275,  351,  401  ; 
aphorisms,  ii.  275.  Epics — 
4  Reinecke  Fuchs,’  i.  255;  ii.  187, 
349  :  ‘  Hermann  und  Dorothea,’  ii. 
95,  18S-195  349,  396.  Frag¬ 
ments — 4  Achilleis,’  ii.  94,  396  ; 

4  The  Wandering  Jew,’  ii.  102. 

Dramas:  Tragedies — ‘Clavigo,’ 
ii.  100,  106,  347,  389;  ‘Egmont,’ 
ii.  100,  150,  1 5 1,  348,  395  ;  4  Faust,’ 

i.  168;  ii.  45,  99,  150,  179,  199, 
256,  320-334,  349,  35V  35V  403; 
4  Gotz  von  Berlichingen,’  i.  314; 

ii.  83,  96,  1 1 3,  129,  132,  347,389: 

4  Iphigenie,’  ii.  i,  152-156,  348, 
395  ;  ‘Natiirliche  Tochter,'  ii  169, 
179,  3s,6;  ‘Prometheus,’  ii.  101, 
103,  348,  389;  ‘Stella,’  ii.  100, 
106,  1 8 1 ,  348, 389  ;  ‘Tasso,’  ii.  1 56- 
1 58,  349,395.  Plays — ‘  Kiinstler’s 
Erdenwallen,’  4  Kiinstler  s  Vergot- 
terung  ’  (or  Apotheosel,  ii.  100, 
303.  Comedies — 4  The  Accom¬ 
plices,’  ii.  (  3,  389  ;  4  Der  Biirger- 
general,’  4  Grosscophta,’  ii.  179; 
‘Die  Aufgeregten,’  ii.  189;  ‘The 
Humour  of  the  Lover,’  ii.  103  ; 
‘Triumph  der  Empfindsamkeit,’  ii. 
150,  160.  Satirical  Dramas — 
4  Jahrmarksfest  zu  Plunderswielern,’ 
ii.  100;  4  Pater  Brey,’  ii.  100,  106; 
4  Satyros,’  ii.  100  ;  4  Birds,’  ii.  150; 
4  Gotter,  Helden  und  Wjeland,’  ii. 
101.  Operettas — ‘Claudine  von 
Villabella,’  ii.  99,  106,  151  ;  ‘Er¬ 
win  und  Elmire,’  ii.  99,  150:  ‘Jery 
und  Bately,’  ii.  15c,  188.  Festival 
Plays — 4  Was  wir  bringen,’  4  Palao- 
phron  und  Neoterpe,’  ii.  197  ; 
4  Prelude’  (of  1807),  ii.  302  ;  4 Pan 
dora,’  ii.  302,  350,  402  ;  4  Des 

Epimenides  Erwachen,’  ii.  302, 
350.  Masks— ii.  144,  256,  350. 


Sketches  of  Dramas — ‘  Caesar,’  ii. 
196  ;  4  Iphigenie  in  Delphi,’  ‘Nau- 
sikaa,’  ii.  166,  595.  Translations — 
4  Mahomet,’  4  Tancred  ’  (Voltaire), 
ii.  178. 

Prose :  Correspondence  with 

Schiller,  ii.  171,  258,  351  ;  Auto¬ 
biographical  writings,  ii.  257  ; 
Journey  in  Switzerland,  ii.  16 1, 
162.  349;  4  Dichtung  und  Wahr- 
heit,’  ii.  257,  350;  4  Italienische 

Reise,’  ii.  149,  162.  350,  395. 

Scientific  Writings — Goethe  as  a 
natural  philosopher,  ii.  148,  163, 
164,  257  394;  as  an  art  critic,  ii. 
164,  257,  395  ;  treatises  on  his 
4  Divan,’  ii.  258  ;  *  Farbenlehre,’  ii. 
164,  165,  257,  350;  ‘Metamor¬ 
phose  der  Pflanzen,’  ii.  163,  256, 
349  ;  4  Winckelmann  und  sein  Jahr- 
hundert,’  ii.  165,  349.  Tales — 

4  Die  guten  Weiber,’  ii.  186;  ‘Unter- 
haltungen  deutscher  Ausgewander- 
ten,  ii.  186,  349,  396.  Novels — 

4  Leiden  des  jungen  Werther,’  ii. 
95,  107^714,  150,  181,  2887  347, 
389;  ‘Wilhelm  Meister’s Lehrjahre,’ 
ii.  181-186,  286,  287,  349,  396 ; 
4  W.  M.  Wanderjahre,’  ii.  186,  297, 
351,  402;  4  Wahlverwandschaften,’ 
ii.  199,  298-301,  350,  391,  402. 
Aphorisms  in  Prose — 4  Maximen 
und  Reflexionen,’  ii.  275.  Trans¬ 
lations — Benvenuto  Cellini,  ii.  167; 
Diderot,  4  Rameau’s  Neffe,’  ii.  257, 
350.  Periodicals — 4  Kunst  und 
Alterthum,’  ii.  166,  258,  350  ;  4  Pro- 
pylaen,’  ii.  165,  349;  Reviews,  ii. 
104,  258.  389. 

Goeze,  Melchior,  ii.  74,  387. 

Goldsmith,  Oliver,  4  Vicar  of  Wake¬ 
field,’ ii.  61,95,  288;  4  the  Traveller,’ 
ii.  101. 

Gompertz,  answer  to  Frederick  the 
Great’s  4  De  la  Litterature  alle- 
mande,' ii  133. 

Gongora,  Spanish  poet,  i.  361  ;  comic 
romances,  ii.  54. 

Gorres,  I.  T.,  ii.  231,  252,  350,  399. 

Gothard,  St.,  i.  73. 

Goths  ^Ostrogoths  and  Visigoths),  i. 
6;  their  religion,  i.  21,  28-31, 
60;  in  history,  i.  31;  ii.  355: 
remnants  of  the  Gothic  language, 
ii-  338. 

Gotter,  Fr.  W.,  ii.  260. 


424 


Index . 


Gottfried  von  Neifen,  see  Neifen. 

Gottfried  von  Strassburg,  i.  17,  139, 
145,  157,  163,  164.  181,  198,  259; 
‘Tristan  and  Isolde,’  i.  136.  153, 
157,  160,171,  176,  179,  203;  ii.  363. 

Gottingen,  ii.  119,  347;  Gottinger 
Hain,  ii.  119,  345,  390  (Uni¬ 
versity). 

Gottsched,  Frau  L.  A.  V.,  ii.  5,  15, 
hi. 

Gottsched,  T.  Chr.,  i.  339,  373,  374, 
376,  401  ;  ii.  1,  8/  20,  21,  23, 
228,  31 1,  345.  346,  384. 

Gotz,  I.  N.,  ii.  28. 

Gotz  von  Berlichingen,  autobio¬ 
graphy,  i.  292  ;  ii.  96,  389. 

Goudimel,  i.  287. 

Grabbe,  Christian,  ii.  305,  319,  352, 
402. 

‘Graf  Rudolf,’  i.  88,  89,  178,  338, 
359- 

Greff,  J.,  i.  307  ;  ii.  342,  378. 

Greflinger,  Georg,  i.  370;  ii.  382. 

Gregory  the  Great,  i.  12,  38. 

Gregory  VII,  i.  61,  80. 

Gries,  joh.  Dietrich,  ii.  248. 

Grillparzer,  Franz,  ii.  301,  310,  312- 
3*4»  35T>  352>  4°3  >  ‘  Ahnfrau,’  ii. 
,  3<H>  3l2-3H- 

Grimm,  the  brothers,  i.  17;  ii.  241, 
252,  400:  ‘Kinder  und  Hausmar- 
chen,’  ii.  253,  2-4,  350,  351  : 

‘  Deutsche  Sagen,  Deutsches  Wor- 
terbuch,’  ii.  253;  Jacob  G.,  i.  32, 
36,  50  ;  ii.  253,  258  :  Wilhelm  G., 
ii-  253- 

Grimmelshausen,  Hans  Jacob  Chris- 
toffel  von,  i.  382,  386-389,  391, 
392  ;  ii.  344,  383. 

Groote,  Gerh.,  i.  267,  373. 

Griibel,  Conrad,  ii.  263. 

Griin,  Anastasius,  see  Auersperg. 

Griinvvald,  Jorg,  i.  246. 

Gryphius,  Andreas,  i.  326-329,  333, 
336,  394  396  :  ii-  305,  344>  380. 

Guarini,  £  Der  treue  Schafer,’  i.  363, 
364. 

Gudrun,  i.  16,  23,  94,  1 24-134,  200, 
252  ;  ii-  339-361. 

Guiscard,  Robert,  i.  61. 

Gunther,  i.  21  ;  ii.  337  (as  Gundi- 
carius)  in  history;  i.  22,  49,  101- 
11 5,  1 18  in  legend. 

Gunther,  Bishop  of  Bamburg,  i.  80. 

Giinther,  Joh.  Christ.,  i.  373,  377  ; 
ii.  345>  382. 


Giinzburg,  Eberlin  von,  i.  282,  284; 
ii.  341,  376. 

Guttenberg,  i.  265  ;  ii.  340. 

Hadamar,  see  Laber. 

Hadawig,  Duchess  of  Suabia,  i.  51. 
Hadlaub,  Joh.,  i.  211,  2r2  ;  ii.  367. 
Hafner,  Phil.,  comic  poet,  ii.  314. 
Hagedom,  Friedr.  von,  i.  376,  379— 
381  ;  ii.  9,  19,  56,  259,  346,  382. 
Hagelgans,  ‘  Arminius,’  ii.  344. 
Hagen,  Friedr.  Heinr.  von  der,  ii.  252, 
350- 

Hagen  von  Tronje  in  the  heroic  song, 

i.  23>  49’  5°»  Jo6,  107,  109- 1 14. 
Plagenau,  Reinmar  von,  i.  146,  147, 

154,  161,  189,  196,  197;  ii.  339, 
362. 

‘  Haimons  Kinder,  die  vier,’  i.  297  ;  ii. 
96,  342. 

Halle,  ii.  28,  385. 

Haller,  Albrecht  von,  i.  377,  378, 
381,  382  ;  ii.  19,  46,  97,  228, 

235>  259’  345’  347’  382. 

Hallmann,  Joh.  Chr.,  i.  395,  400;  ii. 

383- 

Hamann,  J.  G.,  ii.  85,  128,  290,  347, 

388. 

Hamburg,  i.  323,  332,  336,  395; 

ii.  21. 

Hammer,  Jos.  von,  ii.  255,  273,  350. 
Handel,  i.  352,  353  ;  ii.  346,  381. 

‘  Hans  Clauert,’  popular  book,  i.  298  ; 
ii-  343- 

Hanswurst,  i.  399-401 ;  dies  in  Vienna, 
ii.  31 1  ;  revives  as  Kasperl,  ii.  314. 
Hardenberg,  Friedr.  von  (  =  Novalis), 
ii.  248,  263,  349,  400 ;  ‘  Heinrich 
von  Ofterdingen,  ii.  286,  296. 
Harsdorfer,  G.  Ph.,  i.  323. 

Hartlich,  Dr.  Joh  ,  translator,  i.  261 ; 
ii.  372. 

Hartmann,  von  Aue,  i.  138, 139,  148- 
157,  161,  162,  163,  166,  173,  212, 
216,  259,  261  ;  ii.  339,  363  :  ‘Biich- 
lein,’  i.  148  ;  ii.  363  :  ‘  Ereck,’  i. 
15°’  155,  I56,  176;  ii-  363:  ‘Gre¬ 
gorius,’  i.  149,  168  ;  ii.  363:  ‘Der 
arme  Heinrich,’  i.  149. 176  ;  ii.  363  : 

‘  Iwein,’  i.  150,  155,  156,  176;  ii. 

363- 

Hartunge,  Vandal  Kings,  i.  120. 
Hatzer,  Ludwig,  i.  282. 

Hauff,  Wilh.,  ‘  Lichtenstein,’  ii.  285, 
351;  ‘  Mann  im  Mond,’  ii.  289. 
Hausen,  Friedr.  von,  i.  146,  147, 


Index. 


425 


154,  189,  199,  201  ;  ii.  339,  362, 
366. 

Haydn,  ii.  39. 

Hebei,  Peter,  ii.  262,  287,  349,  400. 
Hegel,  ii.  233,  350,  351. 

Hegner,  Ulrich,  ii.  285,  350. 
Heidelberg,  i.  316  ;  ii.  252,  340,  349. 
Heine,  Heinrich,  ii.  278-281,  351, 
40  r. 

Heinrich ;  .r^Langenstein,  Lanfenberg, 
Meissen,  Molk,  Morungen,  Mii- 
geln,  Munchen,  Ofterdingen,  Tiirlin, 
Veldeke. 

Heinrich  der  Glichezare,  i.  145,  254  ; 
ii.  338,  362. 

Heinse,  Wilh.,  ii.  128,  348,  391. 
Heinsius,  Daniel,  philologist,  i.  320. 
Heisterbach,  Casarius  von,  ii.  368. 
Helbling,  Seifrid,  i.  218  ;  ii.  368. 

‘  Heldenbuch,’  i.  259. 

Heljand  ( 'see  Messianic  poems),  i.  42- 

44,  92'  24o  ;  ii-  337,  35^. 

Hell,  Theod.,  ii.  297. 

Hemmerlin,  Felix,  humanist,  i.  263. 
Henrici,  Chr.  Fr.,  i.  353,  373. 

Henry  the  Fowler,  i.  56. 

Henry  III,  i.  60. 

Henry  VI,  i.  90,  137,  201  ;  ii.  339, 
362. 

Henry  the  Proud,  i.  82,  85. 

Henry  the  Lion,  i.  85,  136. 

Henry,  Duke  of  Anhalt,  i.  187. 
Henry,  Julius,  Duke  of  Brunswick,  i. 

310’  311’  3i3,  398  I  ^  343,  379- 
Henry  IV,  Duke  of  Breslau,  i.  208  ; 

ii-  339>  367. 

Plerbort  von  Fritzlar,  i.  141,  187  ;  ii. 
362. 

Herder,  Joh.  Gottfr.,  ii.  82,  84-90, 
122,  124,  125,  138-140,  172,  388; 
‘  Volkslieder  ’  or  ‘  Stimmen  der 
Volker  in  Liedem,’  ii.  89,  283,  34^  ; 
as  a  translator,  ii.  88,  198,  248  ; 
the  Spanish  romance  of  the  Cid, 
ii.  283,  350,  388  ;  ‘  Von  deutscher 
Art  und  Kunst  einige  fliegende 
Blatter,’  ii.  82,  125;  ‘  Fragmente 
iiber  die  neuere  deutsche  Litteratur,’ 
‘  Kritische  Walder,’  ii.  87,  347  ; 
‘  Geist  der  hebraischen  Poesie,’ 
‘  Causes  of  the  lowering  of  taste, 
among  various  nations  once  dis¬ 
tinguished  for  it,’  ii.  89  ;  ‘  Oldest 
record  of  man,’  ‘  Provincial  Leaflets 
for  Clergymen,’  ‘Another  Philo¬ 
sophy  of  History,  with  reference  to 


the  development  of  the  human 
race,’  ii.  125;  ‘  Letters  on  the  Study 
of  Theology,’  *  Gott,’  ii.  139,  348  ; 
‘  Ideas  on  the  Philosophy  of  the 
History  of  Man,’  ii.  139,  149,  247, 
348  ;  ‘  Letters  for  the  advancement 
of  Humanity,’  ii.  140,  349,  385  ; 
‘  Metakritik,’  ‘  Kalligone,’  ii.  141. 
Contributor  to  the  ‘  Teutschen 
Merkur,’  ii.  129,  and  the  ‘Frank¬ 
furter  gelehrten  Anzeigen,’  ii.  104, 
258  ;  ‘Legenden,’  ‘Denkmal  Johann 
Winckelmanns,’  ii.  388  ;  ‘Origin  of 
Language,’  ii.  89,  347. 

Hermann,  see  Arminius. 

Hermann,  Count  Palatine  of  Saxony, 
afterwards  Landgrave  of  Thuringia, 

i.  139,  141,  145.  165,  187  ;  ii.  339. 
Hermann,  see  Sachsenheim. 

Hermes,  Joh.  Timoth.,  ii.  61,  347, 

388- 

Herz,  Henrietta,  ii.  233,  398. 

‘Herzog  Ernst,’  i.  85,  86,  178,  251, 
259;  ii.  338,  3-9,  372. 

Hessus,  Helius  Eobanus,  i.  269 ;  ii. 
373- 

‘  Hildebrandslied,’  i.  25-27,  50;  ii. 
355  ;  The  later  ‘  H.,’  i.  119,  370  ; 

ii.  361. 

Hildebrand  the  Legendary,  i.  5,  25- 
27,  113-115,  ti6  )  19 
Hiller,  Joh.  Adam,  the  composer,  ii. 

17,  177- 

Hippel,  Theod.  Gotti,  von,  ii.  289- 
291,  348. 

Hirtzwig,  ii.  343. 

Hirzel,  Kaspar,  ii.  29. 

History,  i.  66,  74,  178,  262,  292  ;  ii. 
245-  399- 

Hoffmann,  E.  T  A.,  ii.  296,  350,  402. 
Hoffmann,  T.  D.,  continues  Goethe’s 
Faust,  ii.  319. 

Hofmann  and  his  company  of  actors, 
i.  400. 

Hofmannswaldau,  i.  366,  372  ;  ii.  56, 
38t- 

Hohenfels,  Burkard  von,  i.  207  ;  ii. 
339,  367. 

Hohenstaufen,  their  influence  on  Ger¬ 
man  poetry,  i.  145,  237. 

Holbein,  i.  362. 

Holderlin,  ii.  261,  262,  285,  341,351, 
400. 

Holtei,  Karl  von,  ii.  263,  320. 

Holty,  Ludw  Heinr.  Chr.,  ii.  120, 
260,  348,  390. 


426 


Index. 


Homberg,  Werner  von,  Minnesinger, 
i.  208  ;  ii.  3^7. 

Homer  in  the  Middle  Ages,  i.  47,  49, 
68,  84,  132,  141  ;  his  epics  com¬ 
pared  to  the  German  heroic  songs, 

i.  25,  101.  102  ;  ii.  251  :  German 
translation  of,  ii.  12. 

Hornemann,  African  explorer,  ii.  236. 

‘  Ilugdietrich,’  see  ‘  Wolfdietrich.’ 

‘  Hugh  Schapler,’  i.  260. 

Hugo,  see  Langenstein,  Montfort, 
Trimherg. 

Humanism  and  its  literature,  i. 
264  ;  af  the  time  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion,  i.  271  ;  ii.  373  :  its  relation 
to  the  ancient  classics,  i.  293. 

Humboldt,  Alex,  von,  ii.  236-238, 
330.  351,  398;  his  brother  Wil¬ 
helm,  ii.  238-241,  242,  245,  247 
(‘  Skiz/e  der  Griechen  ’) ;  ii  250 
^translation  of  the  Agamemnon  of 
Aeschylus'),  ii.  350,  396,  398. 

Hutlen,  Ulrich  von,  i.  263,  269,  270, 
282-284;  ii.  130,  341,  373,  375. 

Iceland,  i.  61. 

Iff! and,  ii.  175,  176,  348,  395. 

Imhoff,  Amalie  von,  ii.  232. 

Immermann,  ii.  283  (‘  Tulifantchen  ’)  ; 

ii.  286  (‘  Epigonen,’ ‘  Miinchhausen’), 
ii.  305  ;  dramas,  ii.  351.  402. 

Indians,  i.  3,  19  ;  old  Indian  hymns, 
i.  5;  Old  Indian  riddle,  i.  13; 
Indian  tales,  i.  260;  ii  367. 

Indo-germanic,  see  Aryan. 

Irish,  i  33,  38,  47 ;  ii.  355  :  Irish 
poetry,  i.  34. 

Iselin,  historian,  ii.  246. 

Italy,  in  legend,  i.  121  ;  in  history,  i. 
21,  22  (Germans  in  Italy)  ;  i.  47, 
80  (time  of  the  Carlovingians) ;  i. 
53  (time  of  the  Ottos) ;  i.  61  (Nor¬ 
mans  in  Italy) ;  i.  90  (time  of 
Frederick  II)  ;  in  literature,  i. 
34,  67  (Latin  lyrics);  i  92  (home 
of  Romanic  culture) ;  i.  259  (Italian 
romances) ;  i.  267  (humanism  in 
Italy) ;  i.  301  (Latin  dramas) ;  i.  361 
(Italian  style,  ‘  Marinism  ’) ;  i.  351, 
394  (Italian  opera  and  its  influence 
on  German  church  music,  and  the 
German  theatre) ;  i.  399  (harlequin 
on  the  Italian  and  German  stage). 

Jacobi,  Fritz  (Friedr.  Heinr.),  ii.  127, 
170,  182,  242,  390;  his  brother 


Joh.  Georg,  ii.  128,  347  (editor  of 
*  Iris’),  ii.  260  (Anacreontic  poet), 
ii.  2S0  (‘  Sommerreise,’  ‘Winter- 
reise’),  ii.  347,  391. 

Jacobus  a  Cessolis,  i.  221  ;  ii.  367. 
Jnhn,  ii.  350. 

Jean  Paul,  see  1  Richter.’ 

Jeroschin,  Nicol.  von,  i.  185  ;  ii.  366. 
Jerusalem,  Abbot  in  Brunswick,  ii.  70. 
Jerusalem,  the  city,  in  poetry,  i.  70, 
81.  84,  87-89. 

Johannes  von  Wurzburg,  ‘Wilhelm 
von  Oesterreich,’  ii.  340. 

Journal  des  Scavans,  i.  373. 

Jungius,  Joachim,  i.  324,  336 ;  ii. 

380.  . 

Jung  Stilling,  Heinr.,  ii.  126,  348. 
Junius,  Franciscus,  i.  32  (publisher 
of  the  Gothic  Bible),  ii.  344. 

‘  Kaiserchronik,’  i.  74,  94,  178;  ii. 

358. 

‘  Kaiser  Octavianus,’  i.  297  ;  ii.  342. 
Kampfer,  Engelbert,  ii.  236. 

Kant,  ii.  136-138,  233,  347,  348. 
Kantzow,  Pomeranian  historian,  i. 
292 

Karl  August,  Duke  of  Weimar,  i.  335  ; 

ii.  t  43-145,  348,  391. 

*  Karlmeinet,’  i.  82. 

Karsch,  Anna  Louise,  ii.  54. 

Kastner,  G.  Abr.,  writer  of  epigrams, 
ii.  20,  54 

Keiser,  Reinhard,  Composer,  i.  395. 
Kepler,  Joh.,  i.  314,  335  ;  ii.  343,  379. 
Kerner,  Justinus,  ii.  268,  280,  350, 
400. 

Kielmann,  *  Tetzelocramia,’  ii.  343. 
Kind,  Friedr.,  ii.  297. 

Kirchhoff,  *  Wendunmuth,’  i.  295  ;  ii. 
.843’  377; 

Klage,’  die,  the  Lament,  i.  115,  116  ; 
ii.  361. 

Klaj,  Johann,  i.  323,  325. 

Kleist,  Ew.  Chr.  von  ‘  Friihling,’  ii.  29, 
38,  42,  56,  346  (Song  of  a  Lap¬ 
lander),  385. 

Kleist,  Heinr.  von.  ii  282,  301,  306- 
310,  350,  351,  402  :  Lyrics,  ii.  265  ; 
Novels,  ii.  295  ;  Dramas,  i.  307-309. 
Klingemann,  Aug.,  4  Faust,’  ii.  319, 

35°- 

Klinger,  F.  M.,  ii.  115,  319,  348, 

389- 

Klopstock.  i.  375,  382  ;  ii.  30,  38,  64  : 
4  Messiah,’  ii.  9, 12,  30,  34,  120,  346, 


Index. 


347>  385  5  ‘  Geistliche  Lieder,’  ii.  34, 
346  ;  ‘  Oden,’  ii.  34-36,  120,  347 
(‘  An  meine  Freunde,’  or  ‘  Wingolf 
ii.  1 2  :  ‘  Hermann  und  Thusnelda.’  ii. 
37  ;  ‘  War  Song,’  ii.  36)  ;  ‘Bardiete,’ 
ii.  37,  57;  ‘  Gelehrtenrepublik,’  ii. 
120,  347  ;  Collected  letters,  ii.  385. 

Klotz,  Chr.  Ad.,  ii.  69. 

Knonau,  Meyer  von.  Fables,  ii.  58. 

Koch,  Theatre  director,  ii.  7,  8. 

Konigshofen,  see  Twinger. 

Konrad,  Priest,  translator  of  the 
Chanson  de  Roland,  i.  82,  83,  85, 
88,  94,  139;  ii-  338,  359- 

Konrad;  see  Fleck,  Fussesbrunnen, 
Megenberg,  Stoffeln. 

Konrad  of  Wiirtzburg,  i.  179-182, 
184,  221,  251,  256,  260;  ii.  340, 
365:  ‘  Der  Welt  Lohn,’ i.  72,  180; 
ii.  358,  365:  ‘  Schwamitter,’  183; 
ii-  365- 

Komer,  Chr.  Gottfr.,  ii.  266,  396. 

Kbrner,  Theod.,  ii.  266,  303,  350,  402. 

Kortum,  ‘  Jobsiade,’  ii.  283,  348,  401. 

Kotzebue,  Aug.  von,  ii.  176,  249,305, 
349,  396- 

Kress,  Hans  Wilh.,  i.  176. 

Kriemhild,  i.  22,  23,96,  101-114,  118, 
119;'  Kriemhild’s  disloyalty  to  her 
brothers’,  song  of,  i.  103  ;  ii.  360. 

Kuno,  Count  of  Niederlahngau  (called 
Kurzibold),  i.  55-99. 

Kiirenberg,  Knight,  i.  195  ;  ii.  360. 

Laber,  Hadamar  von,  ‘die  Jadg,’  i. 
184,  207  ;  ii.  365. 

Lachmann,  Karl,  i.  102,  103  ;  ii.  244, 
252.  35°,  352- 

Lafayette,  Countess,  Novelist,  i.  385. 

Lafontaine,  i.  371,  376,  380;  ii.  9. 

Lafontaine,  August,  ii.  288. 

Lambert,  Philosopher,  ii.  26. 

Lambrecht,  Priest,  Translator  of  the 
French  Song  of  Alexander,  i.  82- 
84,  94,  139,  338,  359. 

Lamotte,  i.  380. 

Lange,  Sam.,  Gotth.,  ii.  28  ;  translator 
of  Horace,  ii.  58. 

Langenstein,  Heinrich  von,  i.  265  ;  ii. 
34°.  373- 

Langenstein,  Hugo  von,  ‘Martina,’ 
i.  185  ;  ii.  340,  365. 

La  Roche,  Sophie  von,  nee  Gutermann, 
ii-  40,  4b  43.  229,  386,  393. 

Laufenberg.  Heinr.  von,  i.  277. 

Laugier  Abbe,  ii.  63,  82. 


42; 

Lauremberg,  i.  333,  368,  372  ;  ii.  344, 
382. 

Lavater,  ‘  Schweizerlieder,’  ii.  56; 

‘  Physiognomische  Fragmented  ii. 
26,  348. 

‘Leben  Jesu,’  i.  42,  74 ;  ii.  358. 
Legendary  (Sacred),  Poetry,  i.  51,  74, 
184;  ii.  365 

Leibnitz,  336,  342,  353,  354-356,  358, 
372  ;  ii.  345.  347,  381. 

Leipzig,  ii.  3  (Characteristics) ;  ii.  21 
(Literature) ;  ii.  53  (Lessing  in 
Leipzig  ;  ii.  340  (University). 

Lenz,  I.  M.  R.,  ii.  115,  347,  389. 
Lessing,  i.  269,  375;  ii.  6,  47-54,  57, 
82,  87,  386,  387  (Editions,  Biogra¬ 
phies.  see  ii.  346) :  Poetry,  ii.  58  ; 
Anacreontic  poems,  Poetical  Fables, 
Epigrams  and  Didactic  poems,  ii. 

51  ;  Prose  Fables,  i.  217  ;  ii.  58,  347  : 
Odes,  ii.  57  ;  Spartan  War-song.  ii. 
57;  As  dramatist,  ii.  52,  387  ;  ‘Der 
junge  Gelehrte,’  ii.  16,  48,  346; 

‘  Freigeist,’ ‘die  Juden,’  ‘derSchatz,’ 
ii.  52  ;  ‘  Miss  Sara  Sampson,’  ii.  52, 
98,  310-  346>  387 1  ‘  Philotas,’  ii.  57, 
347  ;  ‘  Minna  von  Barnhelm,’  ii.  60, 
9y,  347,  387;  ‘ Emilia  Galotti,’ii.  71, 
72,98,347,  387; ‘Nathan derWeise,’ 
ii.  77-81,  348,  387  ;  Plan  for  Faust, 
ii.  57,  318,  347,  403;  Science  and 
Criticism,  Letters,  Fragments,  ii. 
51;  Preface  to  Gleim’s  ‘  Kriegs- 
liedern,’  ii.  1  24  ;  Literary  Letters,  ii. 
58,  59,  87  ;  ‘Laocoon,’  ii.  59,  62,  65,  ^ 
68,  87,  347,  387;  ‘  Hamburgische 
Dramaturgic,’  ii.  67-69,  347,  387  ; 

‘  Antiquari^che  Briefe,’  ii.  69 ;  ‘  How 
the  Ancients  depicted  death,’  ii.  65, 
347  ;  ‘Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  und 
Litteratur  aus  den  Schiitzen  der 
Wolfenbiittelschen  Bibliothek,’  ii. 
72;  ‘  Antigoeze,’ ii.  75.  348  ;  ‘Free¬ 
mason  dialogues,’  ii.  76  ;  ‘  Erzie- 
hung  des  Menschengeschlechts,’  ii. 
76,  138,  348  ;  Lessing  on  Wieland’s 
Agathon,  ii.  284 ;  Lessing  and  the 
Court  Theatre  at  Vienna,  ii.  311. 
Letters  in  German  Prose,  ii.  110. 

Lex  Salica,  i.  46, 

Lichtenberg.  G.  Chr.,  ii.  132. 
Lichtenstein,  Ulrich  von,  i.  202,  207  ; 
ii.  367. 

Lichtwer,  Magn.  G.,  ii.  58. 

Lillo,  ‘  Kaufmannvon  London,’  ii.  52. 
Limburg  Chronicle,  see  Tilemann. 


428 


Index. 


Lindener,  Michael,  i.  295 ;  ii.  342, 
377- 

Liscow,  Christ.  Ludwig,  i.  381  ;  ii. 
346,  332- 

Literary  history,  Epochs  and  Charac- 

•  teristics  of  German  Literature,  i.  1  ft— 
19,  36  see  ii.  353-  380.  398)  * 
Influence  of  the  Thirty  Years’  War, 
i.  317;  later  development,  i.  331; 
changes  about  A.  D.  1600,  i.  360  ( see 
also  Poetry). 

Lobwasser,  Ambrosius,  i.  287  ;  ii.  343. 

Locher,  Jac.,  translates  the  ‘  Narren- 
schiff’  into  Latin,  ii.  341. 

Locke,  ii.  25. 

Logau,  Fried,  von,  i.  369 ;  ii.  344, 
383- 

‘Lohengrin’  (afterwards  ‘  Lorengel’),  i. 
183,  188;  ii.  3  10,  365. 

Lohenstein,  Dan  el  Casper,  i.  366,  371, 
384  (■  Arminius'),  i.  395  (as  Drama¬ 
tist)  ;  ii.  345  3si. 

Longobards,  i.  12,  22,  31,  35,  47. 

Lothar,  the  Emperor,  i.  h’ 5  ;  ii.  388. 

‘Lothar  and  Mailer,’  i.  260. 

Louis  the  Child,  i  55. 

Louis  the  Bavarian,  i.  232. 

Louis  the  German,  i  36,  44. 

Louis  the  Pious,  i.  36,  42. 

Louis  the  Stern,  Duke,  i.  182. 

Louis,  Prince  of  Anhalt,  i.  317,  332. 

Liibeck,  i.  244;  ii.  371. 

Luder,  Peter,  Humanist,  ii.  373. 

Ludolf’s  revolt  against  Otto,  i.  56, 

86. 

Ludwigslied,  i.  54;  ii.  357. 

Luther,  i.  31,  2 ‘>8,  270,  271,  272-281, 
282,  284,  286,  287,  ,290;  ii.  341, 
342,  374-376 :  Luther  and  the 
Fable,  i.  293  ;  Luther  and  Proverbs, 
295  ;  popular  songs,  i.  296 ;  Prose 
Romance,  i.  296  ;  Luther  and  Faust, 
i.  299;  Luther  and  the  Drama,  i.  301, 
302,  307,  309  ;  ii.  343,  378  :  Luther 
on  Nuremberg,  i.  304  ;  comparison 
with  Paul  Gerhard t,  i.  343  ;  Fis- 
chart  and  Thomasius  continue  his 
pamphleteering,  i.  2S9,  357  ;  Char¬ 
acteristics  of  style,  i.  358,  367  ; 
German  letter-writing,  ii.  no;1  Ein 
feste  Burg,’  i.  278;  ii.  342,  375: 
‘  Wider  Hans  Worst,’  i.  308,  334. 

Lyly,  John,  361. 

Macpherson,  ‘  Ossian,’  ii.  55,  56. 

Mainz,  i.  137,  145;  ii.  339,  362. 


Major  Joh.,  ii.  342,  377. 

‘  Magelone,  die  schone,’  i.  297 ;  ii.  342. 
Mallet,  ‘Geschichte  Danemarks,’  ii.  56. 
Maness,  Rudiger,  Collector  of  Song 
Books,  i.  212. 

Manuel,  Niclas,  i.  282,  284,  303  ;  ii. 
34L  378- 

Marinelli,  Karl  von,  Founder  of  the 
Leopoldstadt  Theatre,  ii.  314. 
Marini,  Italian  poet,  i.  361. 

Marlowe,  Christopher,  ‘  Faust,’  i.  310, 
313,  330;  ii.  317,  321,  350,  403. 
Marner,  i.  209  ;  ii.  367 . 

Marnix,  Phil.,  ‘  Bee-hive,’  i.  289. 
Marot,  Clement,  i.  287,  346;  ii.  376. 
Mathesius,  Joh.,  i.  281 ;  ii.  343. 
Matilda  of  Austria,  i.  264  ;  ii.  373. 
Matilda  of  Magdeburg,  i.  231  ;  ii. 
34°,  368. 

Matthew,  St.,  Gospel  of,  translated,  i. 
40,  273  ;  ii.  356,  374  :  commentary 
on  it,  i.  41. 

Matthison,  Friedr.,  ii.  260,  348,  400. 
Maupertuis,  ii.  26,  30. 

Maurice,  Landgrave  of  Plesse,  i.  310, 
313  ;  ii.  379. 

Maximilian  I.,  i.  258, 2 66,  383  ;  ii.  372. 
Mecklenburg,  ii.  312,  350  ;  ii.  354. 
Megenberg,  Konrad  von,  i.  229;  ii. 
368. 

Meistersingers,  i.  209,  244,  246,  247, 
313;  ii.  366,  371. 

Meiszen,  Heinr.  von,  surnamed  Frau- 
enlob,  i.  210,  222  ;  ii.  340,  367. 
Meiszner,  Gotti.,  ‘  Skizzen,’  ii.  293, 
348- 

Melanchthon,  i.  274,  281 , 291 ;  ii.  376. 
Melissus,  see  Schede. 

Mendelssohn,  Moses,  ii.  51,  39 1  ; 
‘  Jerusalem,’  ii.  137,  348  ;  *  Phado,’ 
ii.  135,  347;  ‘  Morgenstunden,’  ii. 

1 35 ?  1 37,  34s- 

Mendicant  Orders,  Dominicans  and 
Franciscans,  i.  226. 

Menke,  Burkard,  i.  373;  ii.  382. 
Merck,  ii.  104,  258,  347,  393. 

Mereau,  Sophie,  ii.  232. 

Merian,  ii.  26. 

Merovingians,  i.  21,  23,  32-37,  58, 
62,  97,  12 1. 

Merseburg  charm,  i.  T3,  354. 
Merswin,  Rulmann,  i.  233,  235  ;  ii. 

34°>  369- 

Messianic  Poems,  i.  40-46;  ii.  31  :  set 
also  Heljand. 

Metre,  connection  with  Music,  i-  5-  34i 


Index. 


429 


ii.  354 :  among  the  Minnesingers, 
i.  202  ;  Metre  of  the  last  period  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  i  243  ;  Reformed 
by  Opitz,  i.  319;  Improved  by 
Klopstock,  ii.  34  :  Alexandrines, 
introduced,  i.  319:  in  the  Drama, 
i.  396,400;  Alliteration,  i.  10,  15, 
34,  42,  92  ;  Hexameters,  Latin,  i. 
49  ;  German  in  the  Messias,  ii.  34  ; 
Iambics,  blank-verse,  ii.  23,  160  ;  in 
Dramas,  i.  313  ;  Long- verses  in  the 
Heroic  poems,  i.  25,  1 1 5  ;  Rhyme, 
its  origin,  i.  34,  35  ;  ii.  355  :  among 
the  Goliards  and  in  Church  poetry, 
i.  67  ;  drives  out  alliteration,  i.  92  ; 
the  transition  from  mere  assonance 
to  pure  rhyme,  i.  138;  originally 
only  used  in  strophes,  and  later  on 
in  the  same  way  in  the  popular 
epics,  i.  155;  the  Chivalrous  Epic, 
Didactic  poems,  Novels,  Farces, 
&c.,  in  ‘  epic  rhymed  couplets,’  i. 
I55>  253?  285,318;  Stanzas,  i.  361  ; 
Strophes,  i.  5 ;  Invention  of  the 
Nibelungenstroph,  i.  195  ;  Varying 
Strophes  of  the  ‘  Leich,’  i.  202  ;  De¬ 
velopment  by  the  MeLtersingers, 
i.  209 ;  Strophic  Church  Music,  i. 
351  (especially  Passion  Music,  i. 
352,  353  :  see  Opera  C 

Meyer  von  Knonau,  see  Knonau. 

Meyer,  Heinr ,  ii.  165,  172,  177,  256. 

Michaelis,  J.  D.,  ii.  73,  139. 

Miller,  Martin,  ii.  120,  348,  390. 

Milton,  ii.  21,  23,  32. 

Minnesinger,  i.  34,  68,  194-196  (the 
Minnesangof  the  nobles  in  Austria), 

i.  201-209,  223  ;  Decline,  i.  246  ;  ii. 
366. 

Moliere,  i.  361, 371,  398,  399  ;  ii.  314, 
315- 

Molk,  Heinr.  von,  i.  76,  217  ;  ii.  338, 
358. 

Moncrif,  poet,  wrote  comic  romances, 
ii-  54- 

Montaigne,  ii.  289. 

Montanus,  i.  295  ;  ii.  342. 

Montemayor,  ‘  Diana.’  i.  364. 

Montesquieu,  ii.  84,  88. 

Montfort,  Hugo  von,  Minnesinger,  i. 
247- 

Morhof,  Daniel,  i.  354;  ii.  381. 

‘  Moringer,  Song  of  the  noble,’  i.  251  ; 

ii.  372. 

Moritz,  Karl  Philipp,  ii.  284,  348, 
401. 


1  Moriz  von  Craon,’  i.  143,  152;  ii. 
362. 

Morungen,  Heinr.  von,  i.  141,  189, 
251  ;  ii.  362. 

Moscherosch,  Hans  Mich.,  i.  367,  386 ; 
ii.  344,  381. 

Moser,  Justus,  ii.  82-84,  239,  246  ;  ii. 
347?  388- 

Moser,  Joh.  Jacob,  ii.  115. 

Moser,  Friedr.  Karl  von,  ii.  97,  115. 
Mozart,  ii.  177,  311. 

Miigeln,  Heinr.  von,  246. 

Muller,  Friedr.  (Maler  Muller),  ii. 
Ho?  31s?  348?  380. 

Muller,  Gottwerth,  ‘  Siegfried  von 
Lindenberg,’  ii.  288,  289,  348,  401  ; 
continues  Musaus’  ‘Straussfedern,’  ii. 
294. 

Muller,  Johannes,  Historian,  ii.  124, 
246?  247?  34s?  350- 

Muller,  Johannes,  see  Regiomontanus. 
Muller,  Joh.  Heinr.  Friedr.,  Actor,  ii. 
3H- 

Muller,  Wenzel,  vaudeville,  ii.  177. 
Muller,  Wilh.,  ii.  271,  272,  280,  351, 
382,  401. 

Miillner,  A.  G.,  Barrister,  ii.  304,  350. 
Munich,  Henry  of,  Universal  Chronicle, 

i.  185  ;  ii.  366. 

Murillo,  i.  386. 

Mumer,  Thomas,  i.  323,  367,  389; 

ii.  372:  ‘  Narrenbeschworung,’  i. 
257;  ii.  341,  372:  ‘  Der  Grosze 
Lutherische  Narr,’  i.  282;  ii.  341, 
375- 

Musaus,  ii.  44;  ‘  Volksmarchen  der 
Deutschen,’  ii.  143,  294,  348; 

£  Grandison  der  Zweite,’  ii.  289,  347  ; 
‘Straussfedern,’  ii.  294. 

‘  Muspilli,’  i.  40  {see  also  7);  ii.  356. 
Mutianus,  Konrad,  Humanist,  i.  269. 
Myller,  Christ.  Heinr.,  editor  of  the 
Nibelungenlied  and  of  the  Chival¬ 
rous  Epics,  ii.  123,  348. 

Myth,  origin  of  certain  elements  of, 

i.  4  ;  ii.  354  :  Mythology  of  the 
Germans  ( see  Germ  ),  Myths  of  the 
Sun,  i.  9  ;  of  the  struggle  between 
summer  and  winter,  i.  12;  ii.  354. 

Naogeorg,  Thomas,  author  of  Protest¬ 
ant  dramas,  i.  308,  312;  ii.  342, 
378. 

Neander,  T.  Aug.  W.,  Church  historian, 

ii.  246. 

Neander,  Joachim,  i.  346;  ii.  345,  381. 


VOL.  II. 


F.  e 


430 


Index. 


Neidhart  von  Reuenthal,  i.  204-206, 
218,  249,  259,  363;  ii.  339,  367. 

Neifen,  Gottfr.  von,  i.  207,  251  ;  ii. 
339>  367- 

Netherlands,  i.  35  (Language) ;  i.  125, 
original  home  of  ‘  Gudrun  ;  ’  i.  253 
(Animal  epics)  ;  i.  261  (Till 
Eulenspiegel  in  the  Literature  of 
the  Netherlands)  ;  i.  267  (Brothers 
of  common  LifeV,  i.  301  (Latin 
Drama) ;  i.  326  (Dramatic  writings 
of  the  Renaissance). 

Neuber.  Caroline,  and  her  troop  of 
actors,  i.  400;  ii.  310,  345. 

Neuffer,  Chr.  Ludw.,  ii.  261. 

Neuldrch,  Benj.,  i.  372,  373,  381. 

Neumark,  Georg,  i.  359. 

Neumeister,  Erdmann,  composer  of 
Cantatas,  i.  351,  373  ;  ii.  345. 

Newspapers  and  Periodicals,  i.  283, 

375  5  ii-  345 j  349>  376- 

Newton,  ii.  25,  163. 

‘  Nibelungenlied,’  i.  16,  17-,  22,  95, 
97,101-115,118,  125,127,130,  132, 
139,  200,  252  ;  ii.  339,  360. 

Nicolai,  Friedr.,  ii.  51,  249,  391  ; 
‘Sebaldus  Nothanker,’  ii.  61,  290, 
347  ;  ‘  Freuden  des  jungen  Werther,’ 
ii.  132,  289  ;  ‘  Allgemeine  Deutsche 
Bibliothek,’  ii.  134,  347;  ‘  Berlin- 
ische  Monatschrift,’  ii.  134. 

Nicolaus,  see  Jeroschin,  Wyle. 

Ni-colovius,  Ludw.,  ii.  242,  393. 

Niebuhr,  Carsten,  ii.  236. 

Niebuhr,  Barth.  Georg,  ii.  24  r ,  243, 350. 

Nisami,  Persian  poet,  i.  135. 

Normans  and  Normandy,  i.  54,  Co,  61, 
126;  ii.  338. 

Norwegian  Language,  i.  35;  ‘Saga,’ 
95  (=  ‘  Saxon  legends,’  see  ii.  361), 
1 16;  ii.  359. 

Notker,  Labeo  or  Teutonicus,  i.  49,  51; 
‘  Psalms,’  i.  51,  273  ;  ii.  338.  ' 

Novalis,  see  Hardenberg. 

Novels,  Tales  and  Stories,  i.  4  (comp, 
ii.  354),  217,  220,  253,  263;  Poetical 
Novels  since  Hagedorn  and  Gellert, 
ii.  282  ;  Novels  in  the  19th  Century, 
ii.  294;  Collections,  ii.  367. 

Nuremberg,  i.  244-246,  304,  323  ;  ii. 

37L  379- 

Oberge,  Eilhard  von,  i.  136,  144,  155, 
158,  161,  259  ;  ii.  338,  362. 

Odoacer,  in  history,  i.  21 ;  ii.  33 7  :  in 
legend,  i.  22,  n6. 


Oehlinschlager,  Adam,  ii.  303,  350, 
402. 

Oelinger,  Albert,  Grammarian,  i.  275  ; 
it-  375- 

Ofterdingen,  Heinr.  von,  i.  188. 

Opera,  i.  351 ;  Influence  of  Italian 
Opera  on  German  Church  Music 
and  the  German  Theatre — German 
Opera,  ii.  344 :  (First  German  O.) 

i.  394;  ii.  155:  its  culminating 
point,  ii.  177,  383. 

Opitz,  Martin,  i.  316,  319-322,  323, 
364  (‘  Hercynia,’  see  i.  32  D,  366, 
37°>  394(‘Dafne’)  ;  ii-  38,  3445  379- 
‘  Orendel,’  i.  22,  84,  87,  177  ;  ii.  339, 

359- 

‘Ortnit,’  i.  1 20-1 23,  259;  ii.  339,  361. 
Ostrogotha,  King  of  the  Goths,  i.  21, 
22  ;  ii.  337. 

Oswald,  St., i.  84, 87, 128,  177;  ii.  359. 
Oswald  of  Wolkenstein,  see  Wolken- 
stein. 

Otfried  von  Weissenburg,  i.  40,  42, 
44-46,  296  ;  ii.  33,  338,  356. 

Otte,  ‘  Eraclius,’  ii.  362. 

Otto,  Bishop  of  Freising,  i.  66  ;  ii. 
3385  357- 

Otto,  the  Great,  i.  46,  53,  56,  57,  85, 
86 ;  ii.  357. 

Otto  II.,  i.  53,  57. 

Otto  III.,  i.  46,  53  ;  ii.  357. 

Otto  IV.,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg, 
Minnesinger,  i.  208  ;  ii.  339,  367. 
Ottokar  of  Styria,  i.  178. 

Pamphlet  Literature,  i.  263. 

‘  Pantschatantra,’  collection  of  Indian 
Tales,  translated  into  German,  i. 
260. 

Parables,  see  Fables. 

Paracelsus,  see  Theophrastus. 

Passion  Music,  see  Metre  and  Opera. 
Patrick,  St.,  i.  33. 

Pauli,  Joh.  ‘  Schimpf  und  Ernst,’  i. 

295  ;  ^  34L  377* 

Paulinus  of  Pisa,  i.  47- 
Paulus  Diaconus,  i.  47. 

‘  People’s  Books,’  i.  260  ;  ii.  341,  378. 
‘  Volksbiichlein  vom  Kaiser  Fried¬ 
rich,’  ii.  290,  386:  ‘Volksbiichlein 
vom  Gehomten  Siegfried,’  ii.  383. 
People’s  Songs,  see  Poetry. 

Percy,  Bishop,  Collection  of  Ballads, 

ii.  56. 

Pestalozzi,  ii.  240,  287,  288,  348. 
Petrarch,  i.  200,  263,  320,  363. 


Index. 


431 


Petrus  of  Pisa,  i.  47. 

Peuerbach,  Georg,  Astronomer,  i.  265, 
2f6,  267  ;  ii.  341,  373. 

Pfefferkom,  i.  269. 

Pfintzing,  Melchior,  i.  258. 

Pfitzer,  John  Nic.,  ii.  316,  344,  403. 
Pforr,  Ant.  von,  Translator,  i.  261. 
Pierre  de  St.  Cloud,  i.  255. 

Pietists  and  their  Poetry,  i.  344-350, 
382. 

Tietsch,  J.  Val.,  i.  372  ;  ii.  2. 

Pilatus,  Legend  of,  1.-1 44. 

Piligrim,  Bishop  of  Passau,  ii.  361. 
Pirkheimer,  Wilibald,  Plumanist,  i. 
282;  £  Eccius  dedolatus,’  i.  284;  ii. 
34U  375- 

Platen,  August.,  Count  von,  ii.  275, 
277,  283,  302,  306,  351,  401. 
Platter,  Thomas  and  Fe'ix,  Auto¬ 
biographies,  i.  292;  ii.  377. 

Plays,  see  Drama. 

Pleier,  ‘Garel,’  i.  177  ;  ii.  364. 

Poetry,  i.  5  (primitive  forms) ;  Differ¬ 
ent  sorts  of,  i.  5,  10-15  ;  in  the 
service  of  woman,  i.  18  ;  as  the 
organ  of  tradition,  i.  21;  Charac¬ 
teristics  of  the  Poetry  of  the  10th 
and  1 6th  centuries,  i.  17  ;  Special¬ 
ities  of  the  1 6th  century  Middle 
High-German  Poetry,  i.  223,  259  ; 
Characteristics  of  the  Poetry  of  the 
19th  century,  ii.  259:  The  oldest 
forms  of  Poetry  chiefly  choral,  i.  5. 
11  ;  ii.  354:  Poetry  in  laws  (es¬ 
pecially  in  all  solemn  legal  proceed¬ 
ings),  i.  14,  15;  ii.  354:  Poetical 
love  letters,  i.  148,  253  ;  Love  songs, 

i.  5,  293,  370  ;  Riddles,  i.  12,  248  ;  ii. 
354  :  ‘Slreitgedichte,’  i.  47, 148,  248 ; 
Charms  and  Proverbs,  i.  7,  13,  14 

ii.  354:  Clerical  Poetry,  i.  7  7  79 

{see  Epic  Poetry  and  Singers) ; 
Christian  Hymns,  i.  34;  Prayers, 
Poetical  Confessions,  Litanies,  i.  40, 
75,  et  seq.  ;  ii.  35S  ;  Sacred  Songs, 
i-  277,  322,  359  ;  ii.  376  :  Hymns,  i. 
285,  286,  315,  350,  382  ;  ii.  376  {see 
Pietists) :  Songs  for  social  gather¬ 
ings,  i.  12,  2,6,  315,  32:,  369;  ii. 
37',  3^2:  Heroic  songs,  i.  19,  21, 
48  ;  Revival  of  Heroic  poetry,  i.  93- 
101  ;  ii.  359  :  Chivalrous  poetry, 
i.  82, ,  145,  185,  257  ;  ‘  People’s 

songs,’  i.  53,  248,  249,  252  (histor¬ 
ical  and  political  popular  songs),  ii. 
37 1 » 377 >  382. 


Pomerania,  i  292,  312. 

‘Pontus  and  Sidonia,’  i.  261. 

Pope  i.  375.  376 ;  ii.  14. 

Pradon,  ‘  Regulus,’  i.  400;  ii.  345. 
Prague,  University  of,  i.  235,  264  ;  ii. 

34°  • 

Prasch,  Joh.  Ludwig,  i.  385;  ii.  383. 
Premontval,  philosopher,  ii.  26. 
PrLcus,  i.  24  ;  ii.  355. 

Proper  names  of  both  sexes,  meaning 
of,  i.  8,  19  ;  ii.  354. 

Proverbs,  collections  of,  i.  295 ;  ii. 

377- 

Psalms  in  German  rhymed  verse,  i.  48  ; 
ii.  356. 

Pufendorf,  Sam.,  i.  354,  356,  359,  372  ; 
ii.  345,  381. 

Puterich,  Jacob,  von  Reicherzhausen, 
i.  258  ;  ii.  372. 

Pyra,  Jac.  Imm.,  ii.  28,  64;  ii.  345, 

385- 

Pytheas  of  Massilia,  i.  1  ;  ii.  354. 

Rabanus  Maurus,  i.  41,  44;  ii.  337, 
356. 

Rabelais,  i.  288,  375  ;  ii.  289. 
Rabener,  i.  360  ;  ii.  13,  14.  346. 
Rachel,  Joachim,  i.  369;  ii.  344,  382. 
Racine,  i.  371  ;  ii.  2,  155,  178. 
Raimund,  Ferd.,  ii.  314,  315,  326, 
35 1 3  403. 

Ramler,  Karl  Wilh.,  ii.  29,  54. 
Ranke,  Leop.,  ii.  247,  351. 
Rappoltstein,  Ulrich  von,  ii.  340. 
Raumer,  Friedr.  von,  ii.  246,  351. 
Raupach,  Ernst.,  ii.  305,  351,  402. 
Ravenna,  Song  of  the  Battle  of,  i.  117. 
Rebhun,  Paul,  Dramatist,  i.  308,  313; 
ii- 342,  378. 

Regenbogen,  Mastersinger,  i  210;  ii. 

367- 

Regiomontanus,  Astronomer,  ii.  265- 
267  ;  ii  341,  377. 

Reimarus,  Iierm.  Sam.,  ii.  74,  387. 
Rein  aid  von  Dassel,  see  Dassel. 
Reinbeck,  Provost  in  Berlin,  ii.  24. 
Reineke  the  Fox,  i.  146,  254,  255, 
2^3  ;  ii  187,  189.  372. 

Reinmar  der  Alte,  see  Hagenau. 
Reinmar  von  Brennenberg,  i.  251. 
Reinmar  von  Zweter,  see  Zweter. 
Renaissance,  mediaeval,  i  35,  46,  51, 
52,  59,  68,  92,  237,  271  ;  ii.  356; 
modern,  i  271. 

Repkow,  Eike  von,  1  Sachsenspiegel, 
i.  223  ;  ii.  339,  368. 


E  e  2 


432 


Index. 


Reuchlin,  i.  244  (‘  Henno,’  comp.  ii. 
341?  371);  i-  268,  269,  283;  ii. 
373- 

Reval,  i.  244  ;  ii.  371. 

Richardson,  ii.  44.  no,  288,  289. 
Richter,  Jean  Paul  Friedr.,  ii.  282, 
.290-293.  349.  401. 

Ringwald,  Barthol.,  i.  286;  ii.  376. 
Rist,  Joh.,  i.  324,  325,  370;  ii.  344, 
379- 

‘  Ritter  Galmy,’  i.  297  ;  ii.  342. 

Ritter,  Karl,  Geographer;  ii.  237, 
399- 

Robinson  Crusoe,  imitations  of,  i.  392 
( see  Defoe>  ;  ii.  383. 

Roger,  Count  of  Sicily,  i.  85. 

*  Rolandslied,’  i  82,  174,  177. 
Rollenhagen,  Georg,  i.  294,  3S3  ;  ii. 
343,  377- 

Romances,  i.  58,  62-68,  237  ;  Arthur 
romances,  i.  151-154,  1 66, 170,  176, 
261  ;  ii.  363  :  The  romances  pass 
into  prose  ( sec  ‘  Popular  Books  ’),  i. 
256,  297?  3S2  ;  ii.  372,  378,  383  : 
and  flourish  as  heroic  and  love  ro¬ 
mances,  i.  383  ;  ii.  383  :  Historical 
and  Chivalrous  romances,  ii.  285, 
383  ;  Comic  romances,  ii.  289,  383  ; 
Romances  of  travel,  i.  390-3  2  ; 
Pastoral  romances,  i.  316,  363, 
364,  383;  ii.  383:  Romances  written 
as  letters,  ii.  1 10. 

Romanic  nations,  influence  of  their 
culture  on  Germany,  i.  18,  34,  92  ; 
Italian  Academies,  i.  317. 

Rome,  see  Italy. 

Ronsard,  i.  320. 

Rosenbliit,  Hans,  i.  244,  246,  323;  ii. 
34°,  371- 

‘  Rosengarten,’  i.  1 18,  361. 

Rost,  J.  Chr.,  ii.  7,  8. 

Rosvitha  von  Gandersheim,  i.  51,  52  ; 

ii.  338,  341,  35%  371- 
‘  Rother,  Konig,’  i.  84,  85,  94,  177  ;  ii. 

338,  359 
Rotteck,  ii.  246. 

Rousseau,  ii.  39,  no,  113,  287. 

Rubin,  Minnesinger,  i.  204. 

Riickert,  Friedr.,  ii.  37.1,  4c  1 ;  Trans¬ 
lator,  ii.  255;  Lyrics,  ii.  226,  272, 
275  ;  Epics,  ii.  272. 

Rudiger,  Markgrave, i  22  ;  Character¬ 
istics,  i.  23  ;  In  the  Heroic  Songs, 
L  1 1 1  —  1 1 5. 

‘Rudlieb,’  i.  62-65,  67,  73,  124,  388; 
ii-  357- 


Ruc’olf  von  Ems,  i.  1 79, 180, 182, 185  ; 
ii-,  339,  365- 

Runic  writing,  i.  20  ;  ii.  355. 

Sachs,  Hans,  i.  304-307,  323  ;  ii.  34  c 
-343>  378  :  follower  of  Rosenbliit 
and  Folz,  i.  244;  first  carnival 
play,  i.  320;  adapted  Reuchlin’s 
‘  Henno,’  i.  245  ;  ‘  Hiirnen  Siefried,’ 

i.  1 19;  influence  on  the  Drama  of 
Elsass.,  i.  304;  Sachs  and  Ayrer,  i. 
311  ;  Rtform  writings,  i.  282,  284; 

ii.  375  :  Fables  and  poetic  tales,  i. 
294;  style,  i.  302,  367  ;  anthropo¬ 
morphism,  ii.  103.  273,  320;  re¬ 
newed  influence  in  the  18th  century', 
ii.  ico,  130,  263. 

Sachsenhelm,  Herm.  von,  i.  256 ;  ii. 
34b  372. 

Sachsenspiegel,  i.  223. 

Sack,  Court  preacher,  ii.  29,  70. 

Salis,  J.  G.  von,  ii.  261. 

‘  Salomon  und  Morold  ’  (or  Marcol- 
fus\  i.  8  r ,  84,  260  ;  ii.  359. 
Salzburg,  i.  32 ;  ii.  355  ;  Monk  of, 
i.  277. 

Sastrow,  Barthol.,  ‘  Autobiography,’  i. 
292  ;  ii.  377 . 

Satires,  i.  216-220,  254-256,  359,  368, 
382. 

‘Saul,’  Strassburg  Drama,  i.  312;  ii. 

343- 

Sav.rius,  ‘  Conflagratio  Sodomae,’  ii. 

344- 

Savigny,  ii.  244,  350. 

Saxons,  i.  33,  36;  their  subjection 
and  conversion,  i.  36,  41  ;  ii.  337  : 
in  literature,  i.  10  (*'  Wessobrunner 
Gebet  ’) ;  i.  44  (‘Messianic  poem  ’)  ; 

i.  93-95  (Singers  and  Songs) ;  i.  262 
(Universal  Chronicle),  i.  350,  359, 
(great  influence  in  the  beginning  of 
the  1 8th  century). 

Scaliger,  Jul.  Caesar,  ‘Poetik,’  i.  319; 

ii.  342. 

Scandinavians,  i.  33,  60. 

Scharfenberg,  Albrecht  von,  ii.  365. 
Schartlin  v.  Burtenbach,  Sebast., 

‘  Autobiography,'  i.  292  ;  ii.  377. 
Schede,  Paul  (called  Melissus),  i.  287. 
Scheffler,  Johann  (Angelus  Silesius), 

i-  338;  339?  347?  359  5  ii-  344?  380. 
Scheid,  Kaspar,  i.  287  ;  ii.  342,  376. 
Schelling,  Caroline,  ii.  233,  398. 
Schelling,  F.  W.  J.,  ii.  233,  234,  349, 
398- 


Index. 


433 


‘  Schelmuffsky,’  i.  390;  ii.  252,  383. 
Schenkendorf,  Max  von,  ii.  265,  350. 
Schemberg,  Theodorich,  ‘  Spiel  von 
Frau  Jutten,’  i.  242  ;  ii.  341,  370. 

1  Schildbiirger  die,’  i.  292  ;  ii.  343. 
Schiller,  i.  17,  18,  347;  ii.  348,  349, 
396,  397:  youth,  ii.  116-119,  390; 
his  work  with  Goethe7~  ii.  1 71,  395  : 
death,  ii.  198 ;  characteristics,  ii. 
199-228;  journalistic  activity,  ii. 
171;  ‘  Horen,’  ii.  172,  173,  189,  349  ; 
‘  Musenalmanac,’  ii.  173,  349; — 
Poems-,  youthful,  ii.  118,  200; 
Hymn  to  Joy,  ii.  201,  203;  ‘  Gotter 
Griechenland’sund  Kiinstler,’  ii.  203 ; 
Didactic  writings,  ii.  205-207 ; 
‘Xenien,’  ii.  173  ;  ‘  Der  Abend,’  ii. 
207  ;  Ballads,  ii.  208 ;  Epic  schemes, 
ii.  203 .—Dramas'.  ‘Robbers,’  ii. 
it6,  i>7,  348>  397  5  ‘  Fiesco,’  ii. 
11&,  311,  348,  397;  ‘  Kabale  und 
Liebe,’  ii.  118,  348;  ‘Don  Carlos,’ 
ii.  177,  201-203,  348,  397;  ‘Wallen¬ 
stein,’  ii  177,  208-215,  349,  397; 
‘Maria  Stuart,’  ii.  177,  215-218, 
340,  397  ;  ‘  Maid  of  Orleans,’  ii.  1 78, 
218-221,  311,  349,  397  ;  ‘  Bride  of 
Messina,’ ii.  178,  221-224,  340,  397  ; 
‘Wilhelm  Tell,’  ii.  178,  224-228, 
31 1,  349,  397  ;  ‘  Demetrius,’  ii.  228, 
301;  Version  of  ‘  Turandot  und 
Phadra,’  ii.  178; — Prose'.  Ghost- 
seer,  ii.  204,  287,  349 ;  historical 
writings,  ii.  204,  208,  246,  348,  349; 
aesthetic  and  philosophic  works, 
ii.  201,  203,  204,  349 ;  Letters,  ii. 
I7I,  396- 

Schilter,  Joh.,  i.  354  ;  ii.  381. 

Schink,  Joh.  Friedr.,  ‘  Tohann  Faust,’ 
ii-  319,  349- 

Schlegel,  Elias,  ii.  13,  15,  64. 
Schlegel,  the  brothers,  (1)  Aug. 
Wilhelm,  ii.  250,  264,  399 ;  trans¬ 
lates  Shakspeare,  ii.  250, -302,  349; 
‘Vorlesungen  iiber  dramat.  Kunst. 
und  Litt.’  ii.  251,  350  ;  Drama ‘Ion,’ 
ii.  256,  302  ;  Distichs,  Romances, 
Sonnets,  ii.  264. — (2)  Friedrich, 
ii.  251,  265,  399;  ‘  Ueber  die 

Sprache  und  Weisheit  der  Indier,’  ii. 
251,  350 ;  ‘Vorlesungen  liber  Ge- 
schichte  der  alten  und  neuen  Litter- 
atur,’ ii.  251,350  ;  Drama,  ‘Alarcos,’ 
ii.  256,  302  ;  Novel,  ‘  Lucinde,’  ii. 
286,  349. 

Schleiermacher,  ii.  234,  241,  242.  349, 


35 1 ,  399;  Translation  of  Plato,  ii. 
250. 

Schlosser,  Friedr.  Christ.,  ii.  246,  258, 
35J- 

Schlozer,  A.  L.,  ii.  119,  246,  348. 

Schliiter,  Andreas,  i.  372. 

Schmidt,  Klamer  Eberh.,  ii.  260. 

Schmolck,  Benj.,  i.  349  ;  ii.  381. 

Schnabel,  Joh.  Gottfr.,  ‘  Die  Insel 
Felsenburg,’  i.  392. 

Schoch,  J.  G.,  i.  370. 

Schone,  C.  C.  L.,  continues  Goethe’s 
Faust,  ii.  319. 

Schone,  Karl,  ‘  Faust,’  ii.  319. 

Schonebeck,  Bruno  von,  translator  of 
the ‘Song  of  Solomon,’ i.  185;  ii.340. 

Schopenhauer,  ii.  351,  398. 

Schopper,  Hartmann,  i.  255 ;  ii.  343. 

Schottelius,  i.  334,  337,  356;  ii.  344, 
380. 

Schreyvogel,  ii.  312,  403. 

Schroder,  Fr.  Ludwig,  actor  and 
dramatist,  ii.  175,  347,  348,  395. 

Schubart,  Christ.  F.  D.,  ii.  116,  390. 

Schubert,  Franz,  ii.  28r. 

Schulze,  Professor  in  Halle,  ii.  64. 

Schuize,  Ernst.,  ‘  Bazauberte  Rose,’  ii. 
282,  401. 

Schumann,  Valentin,  i.  295  ;  ii.  342. 

Schuppius,  Balth.,  i.  324,  336,  337, 
359 ;  ii.  380. 

Schiitz,  Heinr.,  Composer,  i.  394. 

Schwab,  Guslav.,  ii.  272. 

Schwabe,  ‘  Belustigungen  des  Vcr- 
standes  und  Witzes,’  ii.  7,  346. 

‘  Schwabenspiegel,’ i.  223;  ii.  339,368. 

Schweinichen,  Hans  von,  Autobio¬ 
graphy,  i.  29 2  ;  ii.  376. 

Schwenkfeld,  Kas].  arvon,  i.  282,  337; 
ii-  375- 

Schwerz,  Joh.,  Landowner,  ii.  272. 

Schwieger,  Jacob,  Ljric  poet,  i.  370; 
ii-  344- 

Scott,  Walter,  ii.  285. 

Scriver,  Chr.,  i.  345  ;  ii.  30,  344. 

Seifried,  ‘  Alexandreis,’  i.  185;  ii. 
366. 

Semler,  Theologian,  ii.  73. 

Sermons,  i.  74,  263,  276 ;  ii.  358,  372, 
375- 

Seume,  Gottfr.,  ii.  280. 

Sevigne,  Madame,  de,  ii.  111. 

Shaftesbury,  ii.  25,  44. 

Shakspeare,  i.  52,  272,  313,  326,  305; 
ii.  21,  23,  44,  98,  305,  389  (his 
imitators  in  Germany) ;  ‘  Csesar,’  i. 


434 


Index . 


314;  ii.  17:  ‘ Hamlet,’  ‘Lear,’  i.  314  ; 
‘Romeo  and  Juliet,’  i.  52,314;  ‘  Mid¬ 
summer  Night’s  Dream,’  i.  32S; 
‘Tempest,’  i.  392  ;  ‘Timon,’  ii.  315  ; 
see  also  1  Schlegel  ’  and  £  Tieck.’ 
Sidney,  Philip,  ‘  Arcadia,’  i.  364. 
Siegfried,  meaning  of  the  Myth,  i.  5, 
9,  19;  the  legend  perfected,  i.  96; 
in  the  Nibelungenlied,  i.  101-109; 
in  later  legends,  i.  I18,  119. 

‘  Siegfriedslied,’  or  the  £  Hiirnen  Sei- 
fiied,’  i.  1 19  ;  ii.  361. 

Simrock,  Karl,  ii.  255;  as  a  Ballad 
•writer,  ii.  272  ;  £  Wieland  der 

Schmiede  ’  in  Nibelungen  Strophes, 
ii.  283  ;  translator  of  the  Nibelun¬ 
genlied,  ii.  351. 

Singenberg,  Ulrich  von,  Minnesinger, 

i.  204. 

Singers  (wandering,  travelling,  Vag- 
ants,  Goliards,  Gumpelmen,  Glee- 
men,  Journalists),  i.  20-23.  28,  53- 
59.  67>  73>  84,  246,  247;  ii.  357  : 
characteristics  of  the  Gleemen  of 
the  15th  and  16th  centuries,  i.  246; 
Knights  as  Gleemen,  i.  62,  94  ( see 
‘  Chivalrous  poetry  ’)  :  clerks  and 
priests  as  poets,  i.  67,  73,  77,  94  (see 
‘  Church  poetry  ’). 

Slavs,  i.  5,  1 2 1. 

Sleidanus,  i.  292  ;  ii.  342,  376. 
Society,  £  The  Upright  Society  of  the 
Pine-tree,’  Strassburg,  i.  323 ;  ii. 
344:  ‘The  Leipzic  German,’  i.  373; 
ii-  4)  1 1 7)3445  ‘The Fruit-bringing,’ 
i-  3T7)  323)  33°  5  ii-  343,  379  :  ‘  The 
Pegnitz  Shepherds,’  i.  323  ;  ii.  344, 

379- 

Soden,  Count  Julius,  ‘Faust,’  ii.  319, 
349- 

Sophocles,  see  Ajax. 

Spain,  i.  24  ;  in  literature,  i.  34  t  Latin 
rhymed  poetry  t  ;  i.  315  (Spanish 
poetry  in  Germany) ;  i.  3'>i,  Spanish 
style  (Gangorism) ;  i.  38  « ;  ii.  383, 
Spanish  influence  on  the  German 
novel. 

Spalatinus,  i.  29')  ;  ii.  381. 

Spalding,  Theologian,  ii.  134. 
Spangenberg,  Wolfhart,  £  Ganskonig,’ 

i-  294-  3i3)  323  ;  ii-  343,  377- 
Spee,  Friedr.,  i.  337,  347,  342,  3.^9; 

ii.  344,  380. 

Spener,  i.  344,  345;  ii.  344,  347,  353, 

354,  372  ;  381. 

Spindler,  ii.  351. 


Spinoza,  ii.  103,  164. 

Stagemann,  Friedr.  Aug.  von,  ii. 
265, 

Steele,  and  the  Tatler,  Spectator  and 
Guardian,  i.  375. 

Steimar,  Minnesinger,  i.  207,  211  ;  ii. 
340)  367. 

Stein,  Freiherr  von,  ii.  239,  335,  394: 
Stein,  Chariot:  e  von,  ii.  147. 
Steinhowel,  Heinr.,  i.  261  ;  ii.  372, 
377- 

Stenzel,  Harald,  ii.  246. 

Sterne,  Laurence,  ii.  161,  280,  2S8, 
289,  347. 

Stieler,  Kaspar  von,  i.  354;  ii.  381. 
Stoffeln,  Konr.  von,  i.  177  ;  ii.  364. 
Stolberg,  Christian,  Count,  ii.  120. 
Stolberg,  Friedr.  Leop.,  Count,  ii.  120, 
121,  124,  280,  348,  390. 

Stranitzky,  Jos.,  i.  399. 

Strassburg,  i.  36  ;  ii.  338,  355  (Strass¬ 
burg  Oath)  ;  ii.  95,  347  ;  Goethe  in, 
ii.  122  (Flerder). 

Strieker,  i.  1 76,  217,  218,  294  ;  ii.  364, 
368. 

Sturmi,  Abbot  of  Fulda,  i.  41. 

Sulzer,  J.  G.,  ii.  26,  29,  347,  385. 
Suso,  Heinr.,  Mystic,  i.  230;  ii.  368. 
Siissmilch,  Statistician,  ii.  26. 

Swift,  Jonathan,  i.  375  ;  ii.  78. 
Switzerland,  i.  303:  ii.  19,  24,  378, 

384- 

Tacitus,  i.  2,  8,  11,  19,  42,  367;  ii. 

338,  354- 

£  Tagelieder,’  or  *  Tageweisen,’  i.  165  ; 
ii.  364. 

Tales,  see  Novels. 

1  annhauser,  Minnesinger,  i.  206,  250, 
252  ;  ii.  367,  3-2. 

Tasso,  £  Aminta,’  i.  3^4. 

Tauler,  Mystic,  i.  230  ;  ii.  368. 
Terence,  i.  51,  301  ;  ii.  178. 
Tersteegen,  Gerh.,  Mystic,  i.  348 ; 
ii.  381. 

‘  Teufel’s  Netz,  des  Satire,’  i.  256  ;  ii. 

340,  372- 
Teutons,  i.  1. 

Theatre  :  Academy  Theatre  in  Strass¬ 
burg,  i.  312;  Court  Theatre  at 
Ca-sel,  i.  313;  Italian  Theatre  in 
Par  s,  i.  399  ;  National  Theatre  in 
Berlin,  ii.  175,  348;  The  Court  and 
National  (afterwards  Burgl  Theatre 
in  Vienna,  ii.  31 1,  348  ;  Leopold- 
stadter  Theatre  in  Vienna,  ii.  314. 


Index . 


Themar,  Adam  Werner  von,  translator 
of  Rosvitha’s  ‘  Abraham,’  ii.  341. 

Theodebert,  grandson  of  Clovis,  i.  21, 
121.  _ 

Theodoric,  son  of  Clovis,  i.  121. 

Thecdoric  the  Great,  in  history,  i.  21, 
33  5  h.  337  :  the  differences  be¬ 
tween  history  and  legend,  i.  22  ;  T. 
the  Great  in  legend,  i.  22,  25,  58, 

93,  95,  II8,  12°- 

Theophrastus  Paracelsus,  i.  291  ;  ii. 

295,  376- 

‘Thidreksage,’  see  Norwegian  lan¬ 
guage. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  St.,  i.  229. 

Thomasinvon  Zirclaria,  Italian  Canon, 
and  German  poet,  i.  189,  216,  220 ; 
ii.  367  :  ‘Der  Welsche  Gast,’  i.  214, 
215  ;  ii-  339- 

Thomasius,  Chr.,  i.  356  ;  ii.  345  (‘  Mo- 
natsgesprache’)  ;  i.  359, 372  ;  ii.345, 
381- 

Thomson’s  ‘  Seasons,’  ii.  39. 

Thiimmel,  Mor.  Aug.  von,  ‘  Wilhelm- 
ine,’  ii.  61,  347 ;  ‘  Reise  in  die 
mittaglichen  Provinzen  von  Frank- 
reich,’  ii.  280. 

Thiiring  von  Ringoltingen,  Translator, 

i.  261  ;  ii.  372. 

Thuringia,  i.  33,  55  (conversion)  ;  i.  40 
(change  of  language)  ;  i.  92  (special 
home  of  culture)  ;  i.  138-141  (Vel- 
deke  und  Morungen). 

Tieck,  Ludwig,  ii.  249,  264,  294,  349, 
350,  399 ;  ‘  Franz  Sternbald’s  Wand- 
eiungen,’  ii.  286,  348  ;  ‘  Dramatur- 
gische  Blatter,’  ii.  302  ;  edited  H. 
von  Kleist’s  Works,  ii.  306. 

Tiedge,  Aug.,  ii.  260. 

Tilemann,  Elhem  von  Wolfhagen, 
writer  of  the  Limburg  Chronicle,  i. 
232  ;  ii.  340. 

Torring,  Count,  ‘Agnes  Bernauerin,’ 

ii.  1 15,  390. 

Translations,  i.  293  ;  ii.  377. 

Treizsauerwein,  Marx,  i.  258. 

Tressan,  Count,  ii.  130. 

Trimberg,  Hugo  von,  i.  220,  222, 
259  ;  ii.  340,  367. 

Troubadours,  i.  135,  141,  146,  189, 
200,  225. 

Tsohudi,  ZEgidius,  i.  292. 

Tiirlin,  Ileinr.  von  dem,  ‘  The  Crown 
of  Adventures,’  i.  177  ;  ii.  364. 

Twinger  von  Konigshofen,  Jac.,  i. 
262. 


435 

Uhland,  Ludw.,  i.  98  ;  ii.  255,  268- 
27L  350,  35 L  400. 

Ulfilas,  or  Wulfila,  i.  29-32,  33,  273  -, 
ii-  338,  355- 

Ulrich,  Bishop  of  Ausgburg,  in  poetry, 
i.  56. 

Ulrich  ;  see  Lichtenstein,  Rappoltstein, 
Singenberg,  Zetzikon. 

Urfe,  d’,  ‘  Astraa,’  i.  364. 

Usteri,  Martin,  ii.  263,  352,  400. 

Uz,  J.  P.,  ii.  28,  346,  385. 

‘  Valentine  and  Orson,’  i.  260. 
Vandals,  i.  6,  31,  120. 

Vainhagen  von  Ense,  K.  A.,  ii.  232  ; 
his  wife  Rahel,  nee  Levin,  ii.  232, 
398- 

Veldeke,  Heinr.  von,  i.  137-141  ;  ii. 
362  (Legend  of  St.  Servatius,  i.  138  ; 
.Eneid,  i.  138-140  ;  Songs,  i.  140) ; 

i.  143,  144,  156,  161,  187,  189,  201  ; 
ii-  339)  366. 

Velthen,  Magister,  i.  391  ;  ii.  384. 
Verdun,  Treaty  of,  i.  37. 

Vesalius,  Anatomist,  i.  267. 

Vienna,  i.  97,  219,  395,  310,  31 1  ;  ii. 
345,  403  (the  Theatre  in  Vienna 
and  its  influence) ;  ii.  310,  314 
(Burlesques  at  the  Vienna  Theatres) ; 

ii.  340  (University). 

Voigt,  Joh. ,  Historian,  ii.  246. 

Volker  von  Alzei,  as  a  type  of  the 

Gleemen,  i.  99  ;  in  the  Nibelungen- 
lied,  i.  hi,  114. 

Voltaire,  i.  372  ;  ii.  25,  40,  49,  50, 
177  (‘  Traite  de  la  tolerance’),  ii. 
178;  (‘MahometundTancred’  trans¬ 
lated  and  put  on  the  stage  by 
Goethe),  ii.  178. 

Voluspa,  i.  10. 

Vondel,  Joost  van  den,  i.  326. 

Voss,  Joh  Heinr.,  ii.  121,  187,  262. 
348>  39°>  400- 

Voss,  Jul.  von,  ‘  Faust,’  ii.  319,  403. 
Vulpius,  Christiana,  ii.  166. 

Wagner,  Heinr.  Leop.,  ii.  115,  348. 
Waldis,  Burkard,  i.  294,  342,  377. 
Walkyries,  i.  8,  14. 

Walther  von  der  Vogelweide,  i.  1 7, 
18,  90,  134,  139,  161,  187,  223;  ii. 
339)  36b  ;  his  Spriiche,  i.  89,  194  ; 
Minnesongs,  i.  196-201  ;  W.  and 
Marner,  i.  209  ;  Berthold  von 
Regensburg,  i.  227;  the  po]  ular 
song,  i.  249,  251  ;  E.  M.  Arndt,  ii. 


436 


Index . 


266  ;  Sacred  song,  i.  277  ;  Luther, 

i.  279  ;  Revival  in  the  i8ih  and 
19th  centuries,  li.  124,  255. 

‘  Wartburgkrieg,’  i.  187,  188,  210;  ii. 
3 66. 

Weber,  Karl  Maria  von,  ‘  Freischiitz,’ 
ii-  303- 

Weckherlin,  Rud.,  i.  316,  320,  364  ; 
ii-  343- 

Weckherlin,  Wilh.  Ludw.,  Journalist, 

ii.  1 1 6. 

Wegelin,  ii.  26. 

‘  Weib,  das  libel’  (The  bad  wife), 
Tirolese  poem,  i.  219. 

Weidmann,  Paul,  ‘  Johann  Faust,’  ii. 
318,  348,  403. 

Weimar,  i.  317  ;  ii.  138,  143  et  seq., 
348>  391- 

‘  Weinschwelg,  der,’  i.  220  ;  ii.  368. 
Weise,  Christ.,  i.  370,  371,  373,  380; 
ii-  344>  345>  3S2,  383  5  Romances, 

i.  389  ;  Dramas,  i.  396,  399. 

Weisse,  Christ,  Felix,  ii.  16,  17;  as 

opera  writer,  ii.  17,  55  ;  ‘  Amazon- 
enlieder,’  ii.  53-55,  69,  97,  98 

(‘  Richard  III.’  ‘Romeo  and  Juliet’), 

ii.  262,  347,  384. 

Weissenburg,  Otfried  of,  i.  40,  4 1. 
Welcker,  F.  G.,  Philologist,  ii.  247, 
351- 

W  enzel,  King  of  Bohemia,  Minne¬ 
singer,  i.  208  ;  ii.  340,  367. 

Werner,  der  Gartner,  ‘  Meier  Plelm- 
brecht,’  i.  218,  255  ;  ii.  368. 

Werner  von  Elmendorf,  see  Elmendorf. 
Werner  von  Homberg,  see  Homberg. 
Werner,  Zacharias,  ii.  303,  350  (‘  Feb. 
24’)  ;  ii.  310,  402. 

Wemher,  ‘  Marienlieder,’  ii.  338,  358. 
Wernicke,  Christ.,  i.  372  ;  ii.  2,  345. 

‘  Wessobrunqer  Gebet,’  i.  10  ;  ii.  354. 
Wickram,  Jorg.  i.  297,  378  ;  ‘Roll- 
wagenbiichlein,’  i.  295  ;  Novels,  i. 
297;  ii.  252:  ‘Die  guten  und  die 
bosen  Nachbam,’  i.  297;  Drama  of 
Tobias,  i.  304. 

Widmann,  Georg  Rud.,  author  of  a 
book  of  Faust,  ii.  316,  343,  403. 
Wieland,  Christoph  Martin,  i.  62  ;  ii. 
22,  40-47,  48,  49,  128-131,  142 
(on  Goethe);  ii.  172,  287,  347,  348, 
385  :  Translator  of  Shakspeare,  ii. 
44.  250,  347  ;  and  of  various  clas¬ 
sical  authors,  ii.  131  ;  Editor  of  the 
‘  Teutsche  Merkur,’  ii.  46,  1  29.  347  ; 
Dramas,  ii.  45;  ‘  Alceste,’  ii.  45, 


1 54,  347  : — Epics,  poetic  tales,  and 
other  poems,  ‘  Trial  of  Abraham,’  ii. 
41  ;  ‘  Amadis,  the  new,’  ii.  46,  347  ; 
/  Anti-Ovid,’  ii.  41  ;  ‘  Didactic 

letters,’  ii.  41  ;  ‘  Letters  from  the 
dead,’  ii.  42  ;  ‘  Clelia  and  Sinibald,’ 
ii.  131  ;  ‘  Cyrus,’  ii.  42,  46  ;  Short 
Tales,  ii.  41  ;  Humorous  Tales,  ii. 
43,  347  i  Spring,  ii.  40  ;  ‘  Gandalin,’ 
ii  130,  348  5  ‘  Geron,’  ii.  130,  348; 
‘Hermann,’  ii.  41,  386;  ‘  Idris,’  ii. 
46,  347  ;  ‘  Musarion,’  ii.  45,  347  ; 
‘  Oberon,’  ii.  131,  348,  386  : — Prose 
writings,  ‘  Abderites,’  ii.  45,  347, 
386;  ‘  Agathon,’  ii.  44.  185,  284, 
285  ;  ‘  Araspes  und  Panthea,’  ii.  45, 
347  ;  ‘  The  Golden  Mirror,’  ii.  46, 
347;  ‘Sylvio,’  43,130,347;  ‘Danisch- 
mund,’  ii.  46  ;  ‘  Graces,’  ii.  45,  347. 
‘Wiener  Meerfahrt,’  i.  219;  ii.  368. 

‘  Wigamur,’  the  Knight  with  the  eagle, 

i.  177  ;  ii.  364. 

Wild  man,  the,  Middle  High-German 
poet,  i.  214  ;  ii.  367. 

Wilken,  ‘  Geschichte  de  Kreuzziige,’  ii. 
246>  35°- 

Willamov,  Joh  Gotti.,  ‘Dithyramben,’ 

ii.  54. 

Willem,  ‘Reinaert,’  i.  255. 

Willemer,  Marianne  von,  ii.  272,  394. 
William  the  Conqueror,  i.  61. 
Williram’s  prose  translation  of  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  i.  81,  273  ;  ii. 
,338,  359- 

Willo,  sets  Ezzo’s  song  to  music,  i.  80. 
Wimpfeling,  Jacob,  Humanist,  i.  292  ; 
ii-  34L  376- 

Winckelmann,  Joh  Joach.,  i.  375  ;  ii. 
62,  65,  346,  387. 

Windeck,  Eberh.,  History  of  the  Em¬ 
peror  Siegmund,  i.  263  ;  ii.  340. 
Winsbeke,  the,  Didactic  author,  i.  212, 
220 ;  ii.  367. 

Wirent  von  Grafenberg,  i.  71,  72,  79, 
176  ;  ‘  Wigalois,’  i.  176,  212,  259  ; 

ii-  339?  364- 
Wisse,  Claus,  ii.  340. 

Witten weiler,  Heinr.,  ‘Ring,’i.  255; 
ii.  372. 

Wizlaw  IV.,  Duke  of  Riigen,  Minne¬ 
singer,  i.  208  ;  ii.  340,  367. 

Wodan,  i.  7  (in  different  periods') ;  i.  9 
(his  worship  originated  with  the 
Franks);  i.  13  (in  charms);  i.  19 
(as  ancestor  of  various  princely 
families). 


Index. 


43  7 


Wolf,  Fr.  Aug.,  ii.  241,  243,  247,  349. 

1  Wolfdietrich,’  i.  16,  120-123,  259; 
ii  361. 

Wolff,  Christ.,  i.  357-359,  372  5  ii* 
24,  347>  381. 

Wolff,  Pius,  Alex.,  Actor,  ii.  396. 

Wolfram  von  Eschenbach,  i.  17,  90, 
133)  '38,  1 39)  161-176,  179,  183, 
187,  188,  198,  212,  258;  ii.  339, 
364  ;  Songs,  i.  165,  196  ;  ‘  Parzival,’ 
i.  153,  166-172,  176,  183,  188,  259, 
387  ;  ii.  79,  339,  340,  364:  ‘  Titurel,’ 
i.  1 73, 182  ; ii.  339,341:  ‘Willehalm,’ 
i.  166,  173-176,  179)  i87  5  ii*  79) 
339)  364* 

Wolkenstein,  Oswald  von,  Minne¬ 
singer,  i.  247. 

Wolzogen,  Caroline  von,  ‘  Agnes  von 
Lilien,’  ii.  232,  398. 

Worship  of  the  Virgin,  i.  77  ;  ii.  358. 

Wycliffe,  i.  31. 

Wyle,  Niclas  von,  i.  261,  264  ;  ii.  341. 


Young,  ii.  259. 

Zacharia,  ii.  12-14,  346. 

Zedlitz,  Baron,  ii.  62,  347. 

Zesen,  Phil,  von,  i.  324,  367  ;  ii. 
344,  380 :  ‘  Adriatische  Rosamund,’ 

i*  363,  383)  385  5  ii*  II2)  344,  383* 
Zetzikon,  Ulrich  von,  ‘  Lanzelet,’  i. 
176  ;  ii.  364. 

Ziegler,  Heinr.  Anshelm  von,  ‘  Asia- 
tische  Banise,’  i.  384  ;  ii.  345,  383. 
Ziely,  Wilh.,  Translator,  i.  261  ;  ii. 
372* 

Zincgref,  Jul.  Wilh.,  i.  316;  ii.  344, 
379* 

Zinzendorf,  Count,  i.  348,  349 ;  ii. 
38i* 

Zschokke,  Heinrich,  ‘  Abellino,  der 
grosze  Bandit.’  ii.  349  ;  ‘Sammtliche 
ausgewahlte  Schriften,’  ii.  351. 
Zweter,  Reinmar  von,  i.  204  ;  ii.  367. 
Zwingli,  i.  272,  303. 


END  OF  VOL.  II. 


- 

. 


mmm 


m 


m 


ip 


jpM 


iPtJP 


* 


# 


m  .iff 


Sr 


* 


pfv 


•fist* 


,t. 


-  •>, 


* 


«*p 


& 


I# 


jfe 


*Jt 


* 


S.WV 


fcSfei 


:  <• 

ip|  :-;4 

181 

Isp^ 

||P|7t 

/r 

IKr 

i^i 

Mm^dJ  I 

#||| 

^J|f| 

\  j[f. 

WxtsllM 

mm 

imm 

WM\}? 

//^fTv^  //✓' 

\ip 

i'Sjfc 

ipp 

ispiil 

PI 

liR 

# 


# 


ife 


# 


* 


W#£ 


■  xj^///!^|fc 


^ li ;  / 


>|3 


W&rd-/ 


%$* 


ii 


Nil 


^/;iM 


\,T 


•In 


# 


m 


<#• 


